:i!ii;ii; 


iiii  . 


,    :iii!li!!iiili!ii!il    I  lili  ilillil .     H  liiMliii! 

ihitiiMihii'iiiiiiiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiiiMuiiuMiiMMiiiiiiiniiiiiiiituuiuiiiiiliiinllllilllllllllllliillllliliiJilliiniiiln 


1326  SO.  5TH  ST., 
PHILA..  Pa. 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 

GIFT  OF 


Judd  Marmor,  M.D. 


r 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/ancientsocietyorOOmorg 


Ancient  Society 


OR 


Researches   in     the    Lines   of  Human    Progress   from 

Savagery  through  Barbarism  to 

Civilization 


BY 

LEWIS  H.  MORGAN,   LL.  D. 


Member  of  the  National  Acadcinn  of  Sciences,  Author  of  "The  League 

of    the   Iroquois'',    ••The   American    Beaver   and   his  Works", 

"Systems     of     Consanguinity    and    Affinity    of  the 
Human  Family",  Etc. 


9jj? 


CHICAGO 
<sHARLES    H.    KERR    &    COMPANY 

Ol-Dl'KKAJIVK 


Cum   piorepserunt  primis  animalia  terris, 
Mutum   et  turpe   pecus,   glandem   atque  cubilia  propter 
Unguibus  et  pugnis,  dein  fustibus,  atque  ita  porro 
Pugnabant  armis,  quae  post  fabricaverat   usus: 
Donee  verba,   quibus  voces  sensusque   notarent, 
Nominaque  invenere:  dehinc  absistere  bello, 
Oppida  coeperunt   munire,   et   ponere    leges, 
Ne  quis  fur  esset,  neu  latro,  neu  quis  adulter. 

(As  soon  as  animals  crept  forth  on  the  first  lands,  a  speech- 
less and  degraded  crowd,  they  battled  for  the  acorn  and  for 
their  lairs  with  claws  and  fists,  tlien  with  clubs  and  at  length 
with  arms,  which  afterwards  practice  had  made;  until  tliey 
learned  to  use  words  by  which  to  indicate  vocal  sounds  and 
thoughts  and  to  use  names.  After  that  they  began  to  refrain 
from  war,  and  fortify  walled  towns,  and  to  lay  down  laws  that 
no  one  should  be  a  thief,  nor  a  robber  nor  an  adulterer.) 

—Horace,   Sat.,   I,   iii,   99. 

"Modern  science  claims  to  be  proving,  by  the  most  careful  and 
exhaustive  study  of  man  and  his  works,  tliat  our  race  began 
its  existence  on  eartli  at  tlie  bottom  of  tlie  scale,  instead  of  at 
the  top,  and  has  been  gradually  working  upward;  that  human 
powers  have  had  a  history  of  development;  that  all  the  ele- 
ments of  culture— as  the  arts  of  life,  art,  science,  language,  re- 
ligion, philosophy— have  been  wrought  out  by  slow  and  painful 
efforts,  in  the  conflict  between  the  soul  and  the  mind  of  man 
on  the  one  hand,  and  external  n  ture  on  the  other."— Whitney's 
"Oriental  and  Linguistic  Studies,"  p.  341. 

"These  communities  reflect  the  spiritual  conduct  of  our  an- 
cestors thousands  of  times  removed.  We  have  passed  through 
the  same  stages  of  development,  pliysical  and  moral,  and  are 
what  we  are  to-day  because  they  lived,  toiled,  and  endeavored. 
Our  wondrous  civilization  is  the  result  of  the  silent  efforts  of 
»niIlions  of  unknown  men.  as  tlie  chalk  cliffs  of  Kngland  are 
formed  of  the  contributions  of  myriads  of  foraminifera."— Dr.  J. 
Kaincs,    "Anthropologia,"  vol.   1,  No.   2,   p.   233. 


dONR  F.  HIOSIRS.  PBtHTER  AND  BINDER 
378-380  WEST  MONROE  STREET,  CHICXOO 


Jc 


SRI] 
URfi 


PREFACE 


The  great  antiquity  of  mankind  upon  the  earth  has 
been  conclusively  established.  It  seems  singular  that  the 
proofs  should  have  been  discovered  as  recently  as  within 
the  last  thirty  years,  and  that  the  present  generation 
should  be  the  first  called  upon  to  recognize  so  important 
a  fact. 

Mankind  are  now  known  to  have  existed  in  Europe 
in  the  glacial  period,  and  even  back  of  its  commence- 
ment, with  every  probability  of  their  origination  in  a 
prior  geological  age.  They  have  survived  many  races 
of  animals  with  whom  they  were  contemporaneous,  and 
passed  through  a  process  of  development,  in  the  several 
branches  of  the  human  family,  as  remarkable  in  its 
courses  as  in  its  progress. 

Since  the  probable  length  of  their  career  is  connected 
with  geological  periods,  a  limited  measure  of  time  is  ex- 
cluded. One  hundred  or  two  hundred  thousand  years 
would  be  an  unextravagant  estimate  of  the  period  from 
the  disappearance  of  the  glaciers  in  the  northern  hemi- 
sphere to  the  present  time.  Whatever  doubts  may  attend 
any  estimate  of  a  period,  the  actual  duration  of  which 
is  unknown,  the  existence  of  mankind  extends  backward 
immeasurably,  and  loses  itself  in  a  vast  and  profound 
antiquity. 

This  knowledge  changes  materially  the  views  which 
have  prevailed  respecting  the  relations  of  savages  to  bar- 
barians, antl  of  barbarians  to  civilized  men.  It  can  now 
be  asserted  upon  convincing  evidence  that  savagerv  pre- 
ceded barbarism  in  all  the  tribes  of  mankind,  as  barbar- 


VI  PREFACE 

ism  is  known  to  have  preceded  civilization.  The  history 
of  the  human  race  is  one  in  source,  one  in  experience, 
one  in  progress. 

It  is  both  a  natural  and  a  proper  desire  to  learn,  if 
possible,  how  all  these  ages  upon  ages  of  past  time  have 
been  expended  by  mankind ;  how  savages,  advancing  by 
slow,  almost  imperceptible  steps,  attained  the  higher  con- 
dition of  barbarians ;  how  barbarians,  by  similar  progres- 
sive advancement,  finally  attained  to  civilization ;  and  why 
other  tribes  and  nations  have  been  left  behind  in  the  race 
of  progress  —  some  in  civilization,  some  in  barbarism, 
and  others  in  savagery.  It  is  not  too  much  to  expect  that 
ultimately  these  several  questions  will  be  answered. 

Inventions  and  discoveries  stand  in  serial  relations 
along  the  lines  of  human  progress,  and  register  its  suc- 
cessive stages ;  while  social  and  civil  institutions,  in  virtue 
of  their  connection  with  perpetual  human  wants,  have 
been  developed  from  a  few  primary  germs  of  thought. 
They  exhibit  a  similar  register  of  progress.  These  insti- 
tutions, inventions  and  discoveries  have  embodied  and 
preserved  the  principal  facts  now  remaining  illustrative 
of  this  experience.  When  collated  and  compared  they 
tend  to  show  the  unity  of  origin  of  mankind,  the  similar- 
ity of  human  wants  in  the  same  stage  of  advancement, 
and  the  uniformity  of  the  operations  of  the  human  mind 
in  similar  conditions  of  society. 

Throughout  the  latter  part  of  the  period  of  savagery, 
and  the  entire  period  of  barbarism,  mankind  in  general 
were  organized  in  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes.  These 
organizations  prevailed  throughout  the  entire  ancient 
world  upon  all  the  continents,  and  were  the  instrumen- 
talities by  means  of  which  ancient  society  was  organized 
and  held  together.  Their  structure,  and  relations  as 
members  of  an  organic  scries,  and  the  rights,  privileges 
and  obligations  of  the  members  of  the  gens,  and  of  the 
members  of  the  phratry  and  tribe,  illustrate  the  growth 
of  the  idea  of  government  in  the  human  mind.  The  prin- 
cipal institutions  of  mankind  originated  in  savagery,  were 
developed  in  barbarism,  and  are  maturing  in  civilization. 

In  like  manner,  the  family  has  passed  through  succes- 


PREFACE  vli 

sive  forms,  and  created  great  systems  of  consanguinity 
and  affinity  which  have  remained  to  the  present  time. 
These  systems,  which  record  the  relationships  existing 
in  the  family  of  the  period,  when  each  system  respect- 
ively was  formed,  contain  an  instructive  record  of  the 
experience  of  mankind  while  the  family  was  advancing 
from  the  consanguine,  through  intermediate  forms,  to 
the  monogamian. 

The  idea  of  property  has  undergone  a  similar  growth 
and  development.  Commencing  at  zero  in  savagery,  the 
passion  for  the  possession  of  property,  as  the  represent- 
ative of  accumulated  subsistence,  has  now  become  domi- 
nant over  the  human  mind  in  civilized  races. 

The  four  classes  of  facts  above  indicated,  and  which 
extend  themselves  in  parallel  lines  along  the  pathways 
of  human  progress  from  savagery  to  civilization,  form 
the  principal  subjects  of  discussion  in  this  volume. 

There  is  one  field  of  labor  in  which,  as  Americans, 
we  have  a  special  interest  as  well  as  a  special  duty. 
Rich  as  the  American  continent  is  known  to  be  in  ma- 
terial wealth,  it  is  also  the  richest  of  all  the  continents 
in  ethnological,  philological  and  archaeological  materials, 
illustrative  of  the  great  period  of  barbarism.  Since  man- 
kind were  one  in  origin,  their  career  has  been  essentially 
one,  running  in  different  but  uniform  channels  upon  all 
continents,  and  very  similarly  in  all  the  tribes  and  na- 
tions of  mankind  down  to  the  same  status  of  advance- 
ment. It  follows  that  the  history  and  experience  of  the 
American  Indian  tribes  represent,  more  or  less  nearly, 
the  history  and  experience  of  our  own  rehiote  ancestors 
when  in  corresponding  conditions.  Forming  a  part  of 
the  human  record,  their  institutions,  arts,  inventions  and 
practical  experience  possess  a  high  and  special  value 
reaching  far  beyond  the  Indian  race  itself. 

When  discovered,  the  American  Indian  tribes  repre- 
sented three  distinct  ethnical  periods,  and  more  com- 
pletely than  they  were  elsewhere  then  represented  upon 
the  earth.  Materials  for  ethnology,  philology  and  ar- 
chaeology v.-ere  offered  in  unparalleled  abundance ;  but 
as  these  sciences  scarcely  existed  until  the  present  cen- 


yifl  PREFACE 

tury,  and  are  but  feebly  prosecuted  among  us  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  the  workmen  have  been  unequal  to  the  work. 
Moreover,  while  fossil  remains  buried  in  the  earth  will 
keep  for  the  future  student,  the  remains  of  Indian  arts, 
languages  and  institutions  will  not.  They  are  perishing 
daily,  and  have  been  perishing  for  upwards  of  three  cen- 
turies. The  ethnic  life  of  the  Indian  tribes  is  declining 
under  the  influence  of  American  civilization,  their  arts 
and  languages  are  disappearing,  and  their  institutions 
are  dissolving.  After  a  few  more  years,  facts  that  may 
now  be  gathered  with  ease  will  become  impossible  of  dis- 
covery. These  circumstances  appeal  strongly  to  Amer- 
icans to  enter  this  great  field  and  gather  its  abundant 
harvest. 

Rochester,  New  York,  March,  1877. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PART  I 


GROWTH  OF  INTELLIGENCE  THROUGH  INVENTIONS 
AND  DISCOVERIES 


CHAPTER  I. 

Ethnical  Periods. 

Progress  of  Mankind  from  the  Bottom  of  the  Scale.— Illustrated 
by  Inventions,  Discoveries  and  Institutions.— Two  Plans  of 
Government— one  Gentile  and  Social,  giving-  a  Society  (So- 
cletas);  the  other  Political,  giving  a  State  (Civltas). — The 
former  founded  upon  Persons  and  Gentilism;  the  Latter  upon 
Territory  and  Property.— The  I'^irst,  tae  Plan  of  Government 
of  Ancient  Society.— The  Second,  that  of  Modern  or  Civilized 
Society.— Uniformity  of  Human  Experience. — Proposed  Eth- 
nical Periods— T.  Lower  Status  of  Savagery;  IT.  Middle  Status 
of  Savagery;  HI.  Upper  Status  of  Savagery;  IV.  Lower  Status 
of  Barbarism;  V.  Middle  Status  of  Barbarism;  VI.  Upper 
Status   of   Barbarism;   VII,   Status   of  Civilization 3 


CHAPTER   II. 

Arts  of  Subsistence. 

Supremacy  of  Mankind  over  the  Earth.— Control  over  Subsist- 
ence the  Condition. — Mankind  alone  gained  that  Control.— 
Successive  Arts  of  Subsistence— I.  Natural  Subsistence;  II. 
Fish  Subsistence;  III.  Farinaceous  Subsistence;  IV.  Meat  and 
Milk  Subsistence;  V.  Unlimited  Subsistence  through  Field 
Agriculture.— Long   Intervals  of  Time   between  them 10 


X  CONTENTS  i 

CHAPTER    in. 

Ratio    of    Human    Progress. 

Retrospect  on  the  Lines  of  Human  Progress.— Principal  Contri- 
butions of  Modern  Civilization.— Of  Ancient  Civilization.— Of 
Later  Period  of  Barbarism.— Of  Middle  Period.— Of  Older 
Period.— Of  Period  of  Savagery.— Humble  Condition  of  Primi- 
tive Man.— Human  Progress  in  a  Geometrical  Ratio.— Rela- 
tive Length  of  Ethnical  Periods.— Appearance  of  Semitic  and 
Aryan  Families   29 


PART  II 

GROWTH   OF   THE   IDEA    OF   GOVERNMENT 


CHAPTER    I. 

Organization   of   Society    upon   the   Basis   of   Sex. 

Australian  Classes.— Organized  upon  Sex.— Archaic  Character  ot 
the  Organization.— Australian  Gentes.— The  Eight  Classes.— 
Rule  of  Marriage.— Descent  in  the  Female  Line.— Stupendous 
Conjugal  System.— Two  Male  and  Two  Female  Classes  In 
each  Gens.— Innovations  upon  the  Classes.— Gens  still  Rudi- 
mentary        47 


CHAPTER    IL 

The  Iroquois  Gens. 

The  Gentile  Orgranization.— its  Wide  Prevalence.— Definition  of 
a  Gens.— Descent  in  the  Female  Line  the  Archaic  Rule.— 
Rights,  Privileges  and  Obligations  of  Members  of  a  Gens.— 
Right  of  Electing  and  Deposing  its  Sachem  and  Chiefs.— 
Obligation  not  to  marry  in  the  Gens.— Mutual  Rights  of  In- 
heritance of  the  Property  of  deceased  Members. — Reciprocal 
Obligations  of  Help,  Defense  and  Redress  of  Injuries.— Right 
of  Naming  Its  Members.— Right  of  Adopting  Strangers  Into 
the  Gens.— Common  Religious  Rites,  Query.— A  Common 
Burial  Place.— Council  of  the  Gens.— Gentes  named  after  Ani- 
mals.—Number  of  Persons  in  a  Gens •! 


CONTENTS  xJ 

CHAPTER    III. 

The  Iroquois  Phratry. 

Definition  of  a  Phratry.— Kindred  Gentes  Reunited  in  a  Higher 
Organization.— Phratry  of  the  Iroquois  Tribes.— Its  Composi- 
tion.—Its  Uses  and  Functions.— Social  and  Religious.— Illus- 
trations.—The  Analogue  of  the  Grecian  Phratry;  but  in  its 
Archaic  Form.— Phratries  of  the  Choctas.— Of  the  Chickasas. 
—Of  the  Mohegans.— Of  the  Thlinkeets.— Their  Probable  Uni- 
versality in  the  Tribes  of  the  American  Aborigines 88 


CHAPTER    IV. 

The   Iroquois   Tribe. 

The  Tribe  as  an  Organization.— Composed  of  Gentes  Speaking 
the  same  Dialect.— Separation  in  Area  led  to  Divergence  of 
Speech,  and  Segmentation.— The  Tribe  a  Natural  Growth.— 
Illustrations.— Attributes  of  a  Tribe.— A  Territory  and  Name. 
—An  Exclusive  Dialect.— The  Right  to  Invest  and  Depose  its 
Sachems  and  Chiefs.— A  Religious  Faith  and  Worship.— A 
Council  of  Chiefs.— A  Head-Chief  of  Tribe  in  some  Instances. 
-Three  successive  Forms  of  Gentile  Government;  First,  a 
Government  of  One  Power;  Second,  of  Two  Powers;  Third,  of 
Three  Powers   103 


CHAPTER    V. 

The  Iroquois   Confederacy. 

Confederacies  Natural  Growths.— Founded  upon  Common  Gen- 
tes, and  a  Common  Language.— The  Iroquois  Tribes.— Their 
Settlement  in  New  York.— Formation  of  the  Confederacy.— 
Its  Structure  and  Principles.— Fifty  Sachemships  Created.— 
Made  Hereditary  in  certain  Gentes.— Number  assigned  to 
each  Tribe.- These  Sachems  formed  the  Council  of  the  Con- 
federacy.—The  Civil  Council.— Its  Mode  of  Transacting  Busi- 
ness.—Unanimity  Necessary  to  its  Action.— The  Mourninc: 
Council.— Mode  of  Raising  up  Sachems.— General  Military 
Commanders.— This  Office  the  Germ  of  that  of  a  Chief  Exec- 
utive Magistrate.— Intellectual  Capacity  of  the  Iroquois.  124 


CHAPTER   VI. 

Gentes  in  Other  Tribes  of  the  Ganow&nian  Family. 

Divisions  of  American  Aborigines.— Gentes  in  Indian  Tribes; 
with  their  Rules  of  Descent  and  Inlieritance.— I.  Hodeno- 
saunian  Tribes.— II.  Dakotian.-III.  Gulf.— IV.  Pawnee.— V. 
Algonkin.— VI.  Athapasco-Apache.-  VII.  Tribes  of  Northwest 
Coast.— Eskimos,  a  Distinct  Family.— VTTT.  .=:nlish.  S.ihaptin. 
and  Kootenay  Tribes.— IX.  Shoshonee.— X.  Village  Indians  of 
New  Mexico,  Mexico  and  Central  America.— XT.  South  .Ameri- 
can Indian  Tribes.— Probable  Universality  of  the  Organiza- 
tion In  Gentes  in  the  Ganowanlan  Family 155 


ili  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER    VII. 

The  Aztec  Confederacy. 

Mteconcfeption  of  Aztec  Society.— Condition  of  Advancemeiw — 
Nahuatlac  Tribes.— Their  Settlement  in  Mexico.— Pueblo  of 
Mexico  founded,  A.D.  1325.— Aztec  Confederacy  established 
A.D.  1426.— Extent  of  Territorial  Domination.— ProbaDle 
Number  of  the  People.— Whether  or  not  the  Aztecs  ware 
organized  in  Gentes  and  Phratries.— The  Council  of  Chiefs  — 
Its  probable  Functions.— Office  held  by  Montezuma.— Elective 
in  Tenure.— Deposition  of  Montezuma.— Probable  Functions 
of  the  OfHce.— Aztec  Institutions  essentially  Democratlcal  — 
The  Government  a  Military  Democracy • I'gi 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

The   Grecian   Gens. 

Early  Condition  of  Grecian  Tribes.— Organized  into  Gentes.— 
Changes  in  the  Character  of  the  Gens.— Necessity  for  a  Po- 
litical System.— Problem  to  be  Solved.— The  Formation  of  a 
State.— Grote's  Description  of  the  Grecian  Gentes.— Of  their 
Phratries  and  Tribes.— Rights,  Privileges  and  Obligations  of 
the  Members  of  the  Gens.— Similar  to  those  of  the  Iroquois 
Gens.— The  Office  of  Chief  of  the  Gens.— Whether  Elective  or 
Hereditary.— The  Gens  the  Basis  of  the  Social  System.— An- 
tiquity of  the  Gentile  Lineage.— Inheritance  of  Property.— 
Archaic  and  Final  Rule.— Relationships  between  the  Mem- 
bers of  a  Gens.— The  Gens  the  Center  of  Social  and  Relig- 
ious Influence  221 


CHAPTER     IX. 
The  Grecian   Phratry,  Tribe  and  Nation. 

The  Athenian  Phratry.— How  Formed.— Definition  of  Diksear- 
chus.— Objects  chiefly  Religious.— The  Phratriarch.— The  Tribe. 
—Composed  of  Three  Phratries.— The  Phylo-Basileus.— The 
Nation.— Composed  of  Four  Tribes.— Boule,  or  Council  of 
Chief.s.— Agora,  or  Assembly  of  the  People.- The  Baslleus.— 
Tenure  of  the  Office.- Military  and  Priestly  Functions.— Civil 
Functions  not  shown.— Governments  of  the  Heroic  Age,  Mil- 
itary Democracies.- Aristotle's  Definition  of  a  Baslleus.— La- 
ter Athenian  Democracy.— Inherited  from  the  Gentes.— Its 
Powerful   Influence   upon  Athenian   Development 242 


CHAPTER    X. 

The  Institution  of  Grecian  Political  Society. 

Failure  of  the  Gentes  as  a  Basis  of  Government.— Legislation 
of  Theseus.— Attempted  Substitution  of  Classes.— Its  Failure. 
—Abolition  of  the  Office  of  Baslleus.— The  Archonshlp.— Nau- 
crarles  and  Trlttyes. -Legislation  of  Solon.— The  Property 
Classes.-  Partial  Transfer  of  Civil  Power  from  the  Gentes  to 


CONTENTS  xii! 

the  Classes.— Persons  unattached  to  any  Gens.— Made  Citizens. 
—The  Senate.— The  Ecclesia.— Political  Society  partially  at- 
tained.—Legislation  of  Cleisthencs.— Institution  of  Political 
Society.- The  Attic  Deme  or  Township.— Its  Organization  and 
Powers.— Its  Local  Self-government.— The  Local  Tribe  or 
District.— The  Attic  Commonwealth. — Athenian  Democ- 
racy      263 


CHAPTER  XI. 
The  Roman  Gens. 

Italian  Tribes  Organized  in  Gentes.— Founding  of  Rome.— Tribes 
Organized  into  a  Military  Democracy.— The  Roman  Gens.— 
—Definition  of  a  Gentilis  by  Cicero.— By  Festus.— By  Varro. 
Descent  in  Male  Line.— Marrying  out  of  the  Gens.— Rights, 
Privileges  and  Obligations  of  the  Members  of  a  Gens. — Dem- 
ocratic Constitution  of  Ancient  Latin  Society.— Number  of 
Persons  in  a  Gens 285 


CHAPTER    XII. 

The  Roman  Curia,  Tribe  and  Populus. 

Roman  Gentile  Society.— Four  Stages  of  Organization.— 1.  Th« 
Gens;  2.  The  Curia,  consisting  of  Ten  Gentes;  3.  The  Tribe, 
composed  of  Ten  Curiae;  4.  The  Populus  Romanus,  composed 
of  Three  Tribes.— Numerical  Proportions.— How  Produced.— 
Concentration  of  Gentes  at  Rome.— The  Roman  Senate.— Its 
Functions.— Thp  Assembly  of  the  People.— Its  Powers.— The 
People  Sovereign.— Office  of  Military  Commander  (Rex).— Its 
Powers  and  Functions.— Roman  Gentile  Institutions  essen- 
tially Democratical 309 


CHAPTER     XIII. 

The   Institution   of  Roman    Political    Society. 

The  Populus.— The  Plebeians.— The  Clients.— The  Patricians.— 
Limits  of  the  Order.— Legislation  of  Servius  Tullius.— Insti- 
tution of  Property  Classes.— Of  the  Centuries.— Unequal  Suf- 
frage.—Comitia  Centuriata.— Supersedes  Comitia  Curiata.— 
Classes  supersede  the  Gentes.— The  Census.— Plebeians  made 
Citizens.— Institution  of  City  Wards.— Of  Country  Townships. 
—Tribes  increased  to  Four.— Made  Local  instead  of  Consan- 
guine.—Character  of  New  Political  System.— Decline  and  Dis- 
appearance of  Gentile  Organization.— The  Work  it  Accom- 
plished   ,.••• 332 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

Change  of  Descent   from   the   Female   to   the   Male  Line. 

How  the  Change  might  have  been  made.— Inheritance  of  Prop- 
ertv  the  Motive.— Descent  in  the  Female  Line  among  th*^ 
Lvcians.— The  Cretans.— The  Etruscans.— Probably  among  the 


r  CONTENTS 

Athenians  in  the  time  of  Cecrops.— The  Hundred  Families  of 
the  Locrians.— Evidence  from  Marriages.— Turanian  System 
of  Consanguinity  among  Grecian  Tribes.— Legend  of  the 
Danaidae 353 


CHAPTER    XV. 

Gentes  in  Other  Tribes  of  the  Human  Family. 

The  Scottish  Clan.— The  Irish  Sept.— Germanic  Tribes.— Traces 
of  a  prior  Gentile  System.— Gentes  in  Southern  Asiatic 
Tribes— In  Northern.— In  Uralian  Tribes.- Hundred  Families 
of  Chinese.— Hebrew  Tribes.— Composed  of  Gentes  and  Phra- 
tries  Apparently. — Gentes  in  African  Tribes. — In  Australian 
Tribes.— Subdivisions  of  Fejees  and  Rewas.— "Wide  Distribu- 
tion  of  Gentile   Organization 368 


PART  III 

GROWTH    OF    THE    IDEA    OF    THE    FAMILY 


CHAPTER    I. 

The  Ancient  Family. 

Five  successive  Forms  of  the  Family.— First,  the  Consanguine 
Family.— It  created  the  Malayan  System  of  Consanguinity 
and  Affinity.- Second,  the  Punaluan.— It  created  the  Turanian 
and  Ganowfi,nlan  System.— Third,  the  Monogamian.— It  cre- 
ated the  Aryan,  Semitic,  and  Uralian  system.— The  Syndyas- 
mlan  and  Patriarchal  Families  Intermediate.— Both  failed  to 
create  a  System  of  Consanguinity.— These  Systems  Natural 
Growths.— Two  Ultimate  Forms.— One  Classificatory,  the 
other  Descriptive.— General  Principles  of  these  Systems.— 
Their  Persistent  Maintenauce 393 


CHAPTER    II. 
The   Consanguine   Family. 

Former  Existence  of  this  Family.— Proved  by  Malayan  System 
of  Consanguinity.— Hawaiian  System  used  as  Typical.— Five 
Grades  of  Relations.— Details  of  System.— Explained  in  ita 
origin  by  the  Intermarriage  of  Brothers  and  Sisters  in  a 
Group.— Early  State  of  Society  in  the  Sandwich  Islands.— 
Nine  Grades  of  Relations  of  the  Chinese.— Identical  in  Prin- 
ciple with  the  Hawaiian.— Five  Grades  of  Relations  in  Ideal 
Republic  of  Plato.— Table  of  Malayan  System  of  Consanguin- 
ity and  Affinity 410 


CONTENTS  XV 

CHAPTER    III. 

The  Punaluan    Family. 

The  Punaluan  Family  supervened  upon  the  Consanguine.— Tran- 
sition, how  Produced.— Hawaiian  Custom  of  Punalua.— Its 
probable  ancient  Prevalence  over  wide  Areas.— The  Gentes 
originated  probably  In  Punaluan  Groups.— The  Turanian  Sys- 
tem of  Consanguinity. — Created  by  the  Punaluan  Family. — 
It  proves  the  Existence  of  this  Family  when  tlie  System 
was  formed.— Details  of  System. — Explanation  of  its  Rela- 
tionships in  their  Origin.— Table  of  Turanian  and  GanowSn- 
lan   Systems   of  Consanguinity  and  Affinity 433 


CHAPTER    rv. 

The  Syndyasmian  and  the  Patriarchal  Families. 

The  Syndyasmian  Family.— How  Constituted.— Its  Characteris- 
tics.— Influence  upon  it  of  the  Gentile  Organization.— Propens- 
ity to  Pair  a  late  Development.— Ancient  Society  should  be 
Studied  where  the  highest  Exemplifications  are  found.— The 
Patriarchal  Family.— Paternal  Power  its  Essential  Cliarac- 
teristic— Polygamy  subordinate.— The  Roman  Family  sim- 
ilar.—Paternal  Power   unknown  In  previous   Families.  ..  462 


CHAPTER    V. 

The  Monogamian  Family. 

This  Family  comparatively  Modern.— The  Term  Familia.— Fam- 
ily of  Ancient  Germans.— Of  Homeric  Greeks.— Of  Civilized 
Greeks.— Seclusion  of  Wives.— Obligations  of  Monogamy  not 
respected  by  the  Males. — The  Roman  Family. — Wives  un- 
der Power. — Aryan  System  of  Consanguinity.— It  came  in  un- 
der Monogamy.— Pre^'ious  System  probably  Turanian.— Tran- 
sition from  Turanian  into  Aryan.— Roman  and  Arabic  Sys- 
tems of  Consanguinity. — Details  of  the  Former. — Present  Mo- 
nogamian Family.— Table  of  Roman  and  Arabic  Systems  476 


CHAPTER    VI. 
Sequence  of  Ihstitutions  Connected  with  the  Family. 

Sequence  in  part  Hypothetical.— Relation  of  these  Institutions 
in  the  Order  of  their  Origination.— Evidence  of  their  Origi- 
nation in  the  Order  named.— Hypothesis  of  Degradation  Con- 
sidered.—The   Antiquity    of    Mankind 505 


xv!  CONTENTS 

PART  IV 

GROWTH    OF  THE   IDEA    OF    PROPERTY 


CHAPTE3R    I. 

The    Three    Rules    of    Inheritance. 

Property  in  the  Status  of  Savagery.— Slow  Rate  of  Progress.— 
First  Rule  of  Inheritance.— Property  Distributed  among  the 
Gentiles.— Property  in  the  Lower  Status  of  Barbarism.— Germ 
of  Second  Rule  of  Inheritance.— Distributed  among  Agnatic 
Kindred.— Improved  Character  of  Man.— Property  in  Middle 
Status.— Rule  of  Inheritance  imperfectly  Known.- Agnatic 
Inheritance   Probable    535 


CHAPTER    II. 

The   Three  Rules  of   Inheritance— Continued. 

Property  in  the  Upper  Status  of  Barbarism.— Slavery.— Tenure 
of  Lands  in  Grecian  Tribes.— Culture  of  the  Period.— Its  Bril- 
liancy.—Third  Rule  of  Inheritance.— Exclusively  in  Children. 
—Hebrew  Tribes.— Rule  of  Inheritance.— Daugliters  of  Ze- 
lophehad.— Property  remained  in  the  Phratry,  and  probably 
in  the  Gens.— The  Reversion.— Athenian  Inheritance.— Exclu- 
sively iit  Children.— The  Reversion.— Inheritance  remained  In 
the  Gens.— Heiresses.— Wills.— Roman  Inheritance.— The  Re- 
version.— Property  remained  in  the  Gens. — Appearance  of 
Aristocracy.— Property  Career  of  the  Human  Race.— Unity  of 
Origin  of  Mankind  549 


PART   I 

5ROWTH    OF    INTELLIGENCE    THROUGH    INVENTIONS 
AND    DISCOVERIES 


ANCIENT   SOCIETY 


CHAPTER  I 

ETHNICAL  PERIODS 

The  latest  investigations  respecting  the  early  condition 
of  the  human  race  are  tending  to  the  conckision  that 
mankind  commenced  their  career  at  the  bottom  of  the 
scale  and  worked  their  way  up  from  savagery  to  civili- 
zation through  the  slow  accumulations  of  experimental 
knowledge. 

As  it  is  undeniable  that  portions  of  the  human  family 
have  existed  in  a  state  of  savagery,  other  portions  in  a 
state  of  barbarism,  and  still  other  portions  in  a  state  of 
civilization,  it  seems  equally  so  that  these  three  distinct 
conditions  are  connected  with  each  other  in  a  natural  as 
well  as  necessary  sequence  of  progress.  Moreover,  that 
this  sequence  has  been  historically  true  of  the  entire 
human  family,  up  to  the  status  attained  by  each  branch 
respectively,  is  rendered  probable  by  the  conditions  un- 
der which  all  progress  occurs,  and  by  the  known  ad- 
vancement of  several  branches  of  the  family  through 
two  or  more  of  these  conditions. 

An  attempt  will  be  made  in  the  following  pages  to 
bring  forward  additional  evidence  of  the  rudeness  of  the 
early  condition  of  mankind,  of  the  gradual  evolution  of 
their  mental  and  moral  powers  through  experience,  and 
of  their  protracted  struggle  with  opposing  obstacles  while 
winning  their  way  to  civilization.      It  will  be  drawn,  in 


4  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

part,  from  the  great  sequence  of  inventions  and  dis- 
coveries which  stretches  along  the  entire  pathway  of 
human  progress ;  but  chiefly  from  domestic  institutions, 
which  express  the  growth  of  certain  ideas  and  passions. 

As  we  re-ascend  along  the  several  lines  of  progress 
toward  the  primitive  ages  of  mankind,  and  eliminate  one 
after  the  other,  in  the  order  in  which  they  appeared,  in- 
ventions and  discoveries  on  the  one  hand,  and  institu- 
tions on  the  other,  we  are  enabled  to  perceive  that  the 
former  stand  to  each  other  in  progressive,  and  the  latter 
in  unfolding  relations.  While  the  former  class  have 
had  a  connection,  more  or  less  direct,  the  latter  have 
been  developed  from  a  few  primary  germs  of  thought. 
Modern  institutions  plant  their  roots  in  the  period  of 
barbarism,  into  which  their  germs  were  transmitted  from 
the  previous  period  of  savagery.  They  have  had  a  lineal 
descent  through  the  ages,  with  the  streams  of  the  blood, 
as  well  as  a  logical  development. 

Two  independent  lines  of  investigations  thus  invite 
our  attention.  The  one  leads  through  inventions  and 
discoveries,  and  the  other  through  primary  institutions. 
With  the  knowledge  gained  therefrom,  we  may  hope  to 
indicate  the  principal  stages  of  human  development.  The 
proofs  to  be  adduced  will  be  drawn  chiefly  from  do- 
mestic institutions ;  the  references  to  achievements  more 
strictly  intellectual  being  general  as  well  as  subordinate. 

The  facts  indicate  the  gradual  formation  and  subse- 
quent development  of  certain  ideas,  passions,  and  aspira- 
tions. Those  which  hold  the  most  prominent  positions 
may  be  generalized  as  growths  of  the  particular  ideas 
with  which  they  severally  stand  connected.  Apart  from 
inventions  and  discoveries  they  are  the  following: 
I.  Subsistence,  V.  Religion, 

II.  Government,  VI.  House  Life  and  Archi- 

III.  Lamina ^c,  tecture, 

IV.  Thi Family,  VIT.  Property. 

First.  Subsistence  has  been  increased  and  perfected 
by  a  series  of  successive  arts,  introduced  at  long  intervals 
of  time,  and  connected  more  or  less  directly  with  inven- 
tions and  discoveries. 


ETHNICAL    PERIODS  5 

Second.  The  germ  of  government  must  be  sought  in 
the  organization  into  gentes  in  the  Status  of  savagery ; 
and  followed  down,  through  the  advancing  forms  of  this 
institution,  to  the  establishment  of  political  society. 

Third.  Human  speech  seems  to  have  been  developed 
from  the  rudest  and  simplest  forms  of  expression.  Ges- 
ture or  sign  language,  as  intimated  by  Lucretius,  must 
have  preceded  articulate  language,  as  thought  preceded 
speech.  The  monosyllabical  preceded  the  syllabical,  as 
the  latter  did  that  of  concrete  words.  Human  intelli- 
gence, unconscious  of  design,  evolved  articulate  language 
by  utilizing  the  vocal  sounds.  This  great  subject,  a  de- 
partment of  knowledge  by  itself,  does  not  fall  within  the 
scope  of  the  present  investigation. 

Fourth.  \\'ith  respect  to  the  family,  the  stages  of  its 
growth  are  embodied  in  systems  of  consanguinity  and 
affinity,  and  in  usages  relating  to  marriage,  by  means  of 
which,  collectively,  the  family  can  be  definitely  traced 
through  several  successive  forms. 

Fifth.  The  growth  of  religious  ideas  is  environed 
with  such  intrinsic  dif^culties  that  it  may  never  receive 
a  perfectly  satisfactory  exposition.  Religion  deals  so 
largely  with  the  imaginative  and  emotional  nature,  and 
consequently  with  such  uncertain  elements-  of  knowl- 
edge, that  all  primitive  religions  are  grotesque  and  to 
some  extent  unintelligible.  This  subject  also  falls  with- 
out the  plan  of  this  work  excepting  as  it  may  prompt 
incidental  suggestions. 

Sixth.  House  architecture,  which  connects  itself  with 
the  form  of  the  family  and  the  plan  of  domestic  life, 
affords  a  tolerably  complete  illustration  of  progress  from 
savagery  to  civilization.  Its  growth  can  be  traced  from 
the  hut  of  the  savage,  through  the  communal  houses  of 
the  barbarians,  to  the  house  of  the  single  family  of  civil- 
ized nations,  with  all  the  successive  links  by  which 
one  extreme  is  connected  with  the  other.  This  subject 
will  be  noticed  incidentally. 

Lastly.  The  idea  of  property  was  slowly  formed  in 
the  human  mind,  remaining  nascent  and  feeble  through 
immense  periods  of  time.      Springing  into  life  in   sav- 


S  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

agery,  it  required  all  the  experience  of  this  period  and 
of  the  subsequent  period  of  barbarism  to  develop  the 
germ,  and  to  prepare  the  human  brain  for  the  accept- 
ance of  its  controlling  influence.  Its  dominance  as  a 
passion  over  all  other  passions  marks  the  commencement 
of  civilization.  It  not  only  led  mankind  to  overcome 
the  obstacles  which  delayed  civilization,  but  to  establish 
political  society  on  the  basis  of  territory  and  of  property. 
A  critical  knowledge  of  the  evolution  of  the  idea  of  prop- 
erty would  embody,  in  some  respects,  the  most  remark- 
able portion  of  the  mental  history  of  mankind. 

It  will  be  my  object  to  present  some  evidence  of  human 
progress  along  these  several  lines,  and  through  succes- 
sive ethnical  periods,  as  it  is  revealed  by  inventions  and 
discoveries,  and  bv  the  growth  of  the  ideas  of  govern- 
ment, of  the  family,  and  of  property. 

It  may  be  here  premised  that  all  forms  of  government 
are  reducible  to  two  general  plans,  using  the  word  plan 
in  its  scientific  sense.  In  their  bases  the  two  are  funda- 
mentally distinct.  The  first,  in  the  order  of  time,  is 
founded  upon  persons,  and  upon  relations  purely  per- 
sonal, and  may  be  distinguished  as  a  society  (societas). 
The  gens  is  the  unit  of  this  organization ;  giving  as  the 
successive  stages  of  integration,  in  the  archaic  period, 
the  gens,  the  phratry,  the  tribe,  and  the  confederacy  of 
tribes,  which  constituted  a  people  or  nation  {popidius). 
At  a  later  period  a  coalescence  of  tribes  in  the  same  area 
into  a  nation  took  the  place  of  a  confederacy  of  tribes 
occupying  independent  areas.  Such,  through  prolonged 
ages,  after  the  gens  appeared,  was  the  substantially  uni- 
versal organization  of  ancient  society ;  and  it  remained 
among  the  Greeks  and  Romans  after  civilization  super- 
vened. The  second  is  founded  upon  territory  and  upon 
property,  and  may  be  distinguished  as  a  state  (civitas). 
The  township  or  ward,  circumscribed  by  metes  and 
bounds,  with  the  property  it  contains,  is  the  basis  or  unit 
of  the  latter,  and  political  society  is  the  result.  Political 
society  is  organized  upon  territorial  areas,  and  deals 
with  property  as  well  as  with  persons  through  territorial 
relations.      The  successive  stages  of  integration  are  the 


ETHNICAL   PERIODS  t 

township  or  ward,  which  is  the  unit  of  organization ;  the 
county  or  province,  which  is  an  aggregation  of  town- 
ships or  wards ;  and  the  national  domain  or  territory, 
which  is  an  aggregation  of  counties  or  provinces ;  the 
people  of  each  of  which  are  organized  into  a  body  politic. 
It  taxed  the  Greeks  and  Romans  to  the  extent  of  their 
capacities,  after  they  had  gained  civilization,  to  invent 
the  deme  or  township  and  the  city  ward ;  and  thus  in- 
augurate the  second  great  plan  of  government,  which 
remains  among  civilized  nations  to  the  present  hour.  In 
ancient  society  this  territorial  plan  was  unknown.  When 
it  came  in  it  fixed  the  boundary  line  between  ancient  and 
modern  society,  as  the  distinction  will  be  recognized  in 
these  pages. 

It  may  be  further  observed  that  the  domestic  institu- 
tions of  the  barbarous,  and  even  of  the  savage  ancestors 
of  mankind,  are  still  exemplified  in  portions  of  the 
human  family  with  such  completeness  that,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  strictly  primitive  period,  the  several 
stages  of  this  progress  are  tolerably  well  preserved. 
They  are  seen  in  the  organization  of  society  upon  the 
basis  of  sex,  then  upon  the  basis  of  kin,  and  finally  upon 
the  basis  of  territory;  through  the  successive  forms  of 
marriage  and  of  the  family,  with  the  systems  of  con- 
sanguinity thereby  created ;  through  house  life  and  ar- 
chitecture ;  and  through  progress  in  usages  with  respect 
to  the  ownership  and  inheritance  of  property. 

The  theory  of  human  degradation  to  expain  the  ex- 
istence of  savages  and  of  barbarians  is  no  longer  ten- 
able. It  came  in  as  a  corollary  from  the  Mosaic  cosmog- 
ony, and  was  acquiesced  in  from  a  supposed  necessity 
which  no  longer  exists.  As  a  theory,  it  is  not  only  in- 
capable of  explaining  the  existence  of  savages,  but  it  is 
without  support  in  the  facts  of  human  experience. 

The  remote  ancestors  of  the  Aryan  nations  presumpt- 
ively passed  through  an  experience  similar  to  that  of  ex- 
isting barbarous  and  savage  tribes.  Though  the  experi- 
ence of  these  nations  embodies  all  the  information  neces- 
sary to  illustrate  the  periods  of  civilization,  both  ancient 
and  modern,  together  with  a  part  of  that  in  the  Later 


$  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

period  of  barbarism,  their  anterior  experience  must  be 
deduced,  in  the  main,  from  the  traceable  connection  be- 
tween the  elements  of  their  existing  institutions  and  in- 
ventions, and  similar  elements  still  preserved  in  those  of 
savage  and  barbarous  tribes. 

It  may  be  remarked  finally  that  the  experience  of  man- 
kind has  run  in  nearly  uniform  channels ;  that  human 
necessities  m  similar  conditions  have  been  substantially 
the  same ;  and  that  the  operations  of  the  mental  principle 
have  been  uniform  in  virtue  of  the  specific  identity  of 
the  brain  of  all  the  races  of  mankind.  This,  however, 
is  but  a  part  of  the  explanation  of  uniformity  in  results. 
The  germs  of  the  principal  institutions  and  arts  of  life 
were  developed  while  man  was  still  a  savage.  To  a 
very  great  extent  the  experience  of  the  subsequent  peri- 
ods of  barbarism  and  of  civilization  have  been  expended 
in  the  further  development  of  these  original  conceptions. 
Wherever  a  connection  can  be  traced  on  different  con- 
tinents between  a  present  institution  and  a  common 
germ,  the  derivation  of  the  people  themselves  from  a 
common  original  stock  is  implied. 

The  discussion  of  these  several  classes  of  facts  will  be 
facilitated  by  the  establishment  of  a  certain  number  of 
Ethnical  Periods ;  each  representing  a  distinct  condition 
of  society,  and  distinguishable  by  a  mode  of  life  peculiar 
to  itself.  The  terms  ''Age  of  Stone,"  "of  Bronze,"  and 
"of  Iron"  introduced  by  Danish  archaeologists,  have 
been  extremely  useful  for  certain  purposes,  and  will  re- 
main so  for  the  classification  of  objects  of  ancient  art; 
but  the  progress  of  knowledge  has  rendered  other  and 
different  subdivisions  necessary.  Stone  implements 
were  not  entirely  laid  aside  with  the  introduction  of 
tools  of  iron,  nor  of  those  of  bronze.  The  invention  of 
the  process  of  smelting  iron  ore  created  an  ethnical 
epoch,  yet  we  could  scarcely  date  another  from  the  pro- 
duction of  bronze.  Moreover,  since  the  period  of  stone 
implements  overlaps  those  of  bronze  and  of  iron,  and 
since  that  of  bronze  also  overlaps  that  of  iron,  they  are 
not  capable  of  a  circumscription  that  would  leave  each 
independent  and  distinct. 


ETHNICAL   PERIODS  9 

It  is  probable  that  the  successive  arts  of  svibsistence 
which  arose  at  long  intervals  will  ultimately,  from  the 
great  influence  they  must  have  exercised  upon  the  con- 
dition of  mankind,  afford  the  most  satisfactory  bases  for 
these  divisions.  But  investigation  has  not  been  carried 
far  enough  in  this  direction  to  yield  the  necessary  in- 
formation. \\'ith  our  present  knowledge  the  main  result 
can  be  attained  by  selecting  such  other  inventions  or  dis- 
coveries as  will  afford  sufficient  tests  of  progress  to  char- 
acterize the  commencement  of  successive  ethnical  peri- 
ods. Even  though  accepted  as  provisional,  these  periods 
will  be  found  convenient  and  useful.  Each  of  those  about 
to  be  proposed  will  be  found  to  cover  a  distinct  culture, 
and  to  represent  a  particular  mode  of  life. 

The  period  of  savagery,  of  the  early  part  of  which 
very  little  is  known,  may  be  divided,  provisionally,  into 
three  subperiods.  These  may  be  named  respectively  the 
Older,  the  Middle,  and  the  Later  period  of  savagery; 
and  the  condition  of  society  in  each,  respectively,  may  be 
distinguished  as  the  Lozver,  the  Middle,  and  the  Upper 
Status  of  savagery. 

In  like  manner,  the  period  of  barbarism  divides  nat- 
urally into  three  sub-periods,  which  will  be  called,  re- 
spectively, the  Older,  the  Middle,  and  the  Later  period 
of  barbarism ;  and  the  condition  of  society  in  each,  re- 
spectively, will  be  distinguished  as  the  Lozver,  the  Mid- 
dle, and  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism. 

It  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  find  such  tests  of 
progress  to  mark  the  commencement  of  these  several 
periods  as  will  be  found  absolute  in  their  application, 
and  without  exceptions  upon  all  the  continents.  Neither 
is  it  necessary,  for  the  purpose  in  hand,  that  exceptions 
should  not  exist.  It  will  be  sufficient  if  the  principal 
tribes  of  mankind  can  be  classified,  according  to  the  de- 
gree of  their  relative  progress,  into  conditions  which  can 
be  recognized  as  distinct. 

I.     Lozver  Status  of  Saz'agery. 

This  period  commenced  with  the  infancy  of  the  human 
race,  and  may  be  said  to  have  ended  with  the  acquisi- 
tion of  a  fish  subsistence  and  of  a  knowledge  of  the  use 


10  ANCIENT  S(>CIETY 

of  fire.  Mankind  were  then  living  in  their  original 
restricted  habitat,  and  subsisting  upon  fruits  and  nuts. 
The  commencement  of  articulate  speech  belongs  to  this 
period.  No  exemplification  of  tribes  of  mankind  in  this 
condition  remained  to  the  historical  period. 

II.  Middle  Status  of  Savagery. 

It  commenced  with  the  acquisition  of  a  fish  subsist- 
ence and  a  knowledge  of  the  use  of  fire,  and  ended  with 
the  invention  of  the  bow  and  arrow.  Mankind,  while 
in  this  condition,  spread  from  their  original  habitat  over 
the  greater  portion  of  the  earth's  surface.  Among 
tribes  still  existing  it  will  leave  in  the  Middle  Status  of 
savagery,  for  example,  the  Australians  and  the  greater 
part  of  the  Polynesians  when  discovered.  It  will  be  suf- 
ficient to  give  one  or  more  exemplifications  of  each 
status. 

III.  Upper  Status  of  Savagery. 

It  commenced  with  the  invention  of  the  bow  and  ar- 
row, and  ended  with  the  invention  of  the  art  of  pottery. 
It  leaves  in  the  Upper  Status  of  Savagery  the  Athapascan 
tribes  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Territory,  the  tribes  of  the 
valley  of  the  Columbia,  and  certain  coast  tribes  of  North 
and  South  America;  but  with  relation  to  the  time  of 
their  discovery.    This  closes  the  period  of  Savagery. 

IV.  Lozver  Stattis  of  Barbarism. 

The  invention  or  practice  of  the  art  of  pottery,  all 
things  considered,  is  probably  the  most  effective  and  con- 
clusive test  that  can  be  selected  to  fix  a  boundary  line, 
necessarily  arbitrary,  between  savagery  and  barbarism. 
The  distinctness  of  the  two  conditions  has  long  been  re- 
cognized, but  no  criterion  of  progress  out  of  the  former 
into  the  latter  has  hitherto  been  brought  forward.  All 
such  tribes,  then,  as  never  attained  to  the  art  of  pottery 
will  be  classed  as  savages,  and  those  possessing  this  art 
but  who  never  attained  a  phonetic  alphabet  and  the  use 
of  writing  will  be  classed  as  barbarians. 

The  first  sub-period  of  barbarism  commenced  with  the 
manufacture  of  pottery,  whether  by  original  invention 
or  adoption.  In  finding  its  termination,  and  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Middle  Status,  a  difficulty  is  encoun- 


ETHNICAL.    PERIODS  11 

tered  in  the  unequal  endowments  of  the  two  hemispheres, 
which  began  to  be  influential  upon  human  affairs  after 
the  period  of  savagery  had  passed.  It  may  be  met,  how- 
ever, by  the  adoption  of  equivalents.  In  the  Eastern 
hemisphere,  the  domestication  of  animals,  and  the  West- 
ern, the  cultivation  of  maize  and  plants  by  irrigation,  to- 
gether with  the  use  of  adobe-brick  and  stone  in  house 
building  have  been  selected  as  sufficient  evidence  of 
progress  to  work  a  transition  out  of  the  Lower  and  into 
the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism.  It  leaves,  for  example, 
in  the  Lower  Status,  the  Indian  tribes  of  the  United 
States  east  of  the  Missouri  River,  and  such  tribes  of 
Europe  and  Asia  as  practiced  the  art  of  pottery,  but 
were  without  domestic  animals. 

V.     Middle  Stahts  of  Barbarism. 

It  commenced  with  the  domestication  of  animals  in  the 
Eastern  hemisphere,  and  in  the  Western  with  cultivation 
by  irrigation  and  with  the  use  of  adobe-brick  and  stone 
in  architecture,  as  shown.  Its  termination  may  be  fixed 
with  the  invention  of  the  process  of  smelting  iron  ore. 
This  places  in  the  Middle  Status,  for  example,  the  Vil- 
lage Indians  of  New  Mexico,  Mexico,  Central  America 
and  Peru,  and  such  tribes  in  the  Eastern  hemisphere  as 
possessed  domestic  animals,  but  were  without  a  knowl- 
edge of  iron.  The  ancient  Britons,  although  familiar 
with  the  use  of  iron,  fairly  belong  in  this  connection. 
The  vicinity  of  more  advanced  continental  tribes  had 
advanced  the  arts  of  life  among  them  far  beyond  the 
state  of  development  of  their  domestic  institutions. 

VL     Upper  Status  of  Barbarism. 

It  commenced  with  the  manufacture  of  iron,  and  ended 
with  the  invention  of  a  phonetic  alphabet,  and  the  use  of 
writing  in  literary  composition.  Here  civilization  begins. 
This  leaves  in  the  Upper  Status,  for  example,  the  Gre- 
cian tribes  of  the  Homeric  age,  the  Italian  tribes  shortly 
before  the  founding  of  Rome,  and  the  Germanic  tribes 
of  the  time  of  Casar. 

Vn.     Status  of  Civilization. 

It  commenced,  as  stated,  with  the  use  of  a  phonetic 
alphabet   and    the   production   of   literary    records,    ana 


12  ANCIENT  SOCIETf 

divides    into    Ancient   and    Modern.     As   an    equivalent, 
hieroglyphical  writing  upon  stone  may  be  admitted. 

RECAPITULATION. 

Periods.  Conditions. 

I.  Older    Period    of   Savagery,  I.  Lower    Status    of    Savagery, 

II.  Middle  Period  of  Savagery,  II.  Middle   Status   ot   Savagery, 

III.  Later   Period   of  Savagery,  TIT.  Upper    Status    of    Savagery, 

IV.  Older   Period  of  Barbarism,  IV.  Lower   Status  of  Barbarism, 
V.  Middle   Period    of   Barbar-  V.  Middle      Status     of     Barbar- 
ism, ism, 

VL  Later  Period  of  Barbarism,   VI.  Upper   Status    of   Barbarism, 
VIL  Status   of  Civilization. 

I.  Lower    Status    of    Savagery,   From    the    Infancy   of    the   Hu- 
man    Race     to     the     commence- 
ment  of  the   next   Period. 
II.  Middle    Status    of    Savagery,  From   the   acquisition   of  a   fish 

subsistence  and  a  knowledge 
of  the  use  of  fire,  to  etc, 

III.  Upper    Status    of    Savagery,   From  the  Invention  of  the  Bow 

and  Arrow,  to  etc. 

IV.  Lower   Status  of   Barbarism,    From  the  Invention  of  tlie  .Art 

of  Pottery,  to  etc. 
V.  Middle    Status    of    Barbar-     From  the  Domestication  of  an- 
ism,  Imals     on     the     Eastern     hemi- 

sphere, and  in  the  Western 
from  the  cultivation  of  maize 
and  plants  by  Irrigation,  with 
the  use  of  adobe-brick  and 
stone,   to  etc, 

VI.  Upper   Status   of   Barbarism,    From     the      Invention     of     the 

process  of  Smelting  Iron  Ore, 
with  the  use  of  iron  tools,  to 
etc. 

VII.  Status    of    Civilization,    From    the    Invention    of   a   Phonetic 

Alphabet,  with  the  use  of  writ- 
ing, to  the  present  time. 

Each  of  these  periods  has  a  distinct  culture  and  exhib- 
its a  mode  of  life  more  or  less  special  and  peculiar  to 


ETHNICAL   PERIODS  13 

itself.  This  specialization  of  ethnical  periods  renders  it 
possible  to  treat  a  particular  society  according  to  its  con- 
dition of  relative  advancement,  and  to  make  it  a  subject 
of  independent  study  and  discussion.  It  does  not  affect 
the  main  result  that  different  tribes  and  nations  on  the 
same  continent,  and  even  of  the  same  linguistic  family, 
are  in  different  conditions  at  the  same  time,  since  for 
our  purpose  the  condition  of  each  is  the  material  fact, 
the  time  being  immaterial. 

Since  the  use  of  pottery  is  less  significant  than  that  of 
domestic  animals,  of  iron,  or  of  a  phonetic  alphabet, 
employed  to  mark  the  commencement  of  subsequent  eth- 
nical periods,  the  reasons  for  its  adoption  should  be 
stated.  The  manufacture  of  pottery  presupposes  village 
life,  and  considerable  progress  in  the  simple  arts.  ^  Flint 
and  stone  implements  are  older  than  pottery,  remains  of 
the  former  having  been  found  in  ancient  repositories  in 
numerous  instances  unaccompanied  by  the  latter.  A  suc- 
cession of  inventions  of  greater  need  and  adapted  to  a 
lower  condition  must  have  occurred  before  the  want  of 
pottery  would  be  felt.  The  commencement  of  village 
life,  with  some  degree  of  control  over  subsistence,  wooden 
vessels  and  utensils,  finger  weaving  with  filaments  of 
bark,  basket  making,  and  the  bow  and  arrow  make  their 
appearance  before  the  art  of  pottery.  The  Village  In- 
dians who  were  in  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism,  such 
as  the  Zunians  the  Aztecs  and  the  Cholulans,  manufac- 
tured pottery  in  large  quantities  and  in  many  forms  of 
considerable  excellence ;  the  partially  Village  Indians  of 
the  United  States,  who  were  in  the  Lower  Status  of  bar- 
barism, such  as  the  Iroquois,  the  Choctas,  and  the  Cher- 
okees,  made  it  in  smaller  quantities  and  in  a  limited  num- 

1  Mr.  Edwin  B.  Tylor  observes  that  Goquet  "first  propounded, 
in  the  last  century,  the  notion  that  the  way  in  which  pottery 
came  to  be  made,  was  that  people  daubed  such  combusible  ves- 
sels as  these  with  clay  to  protect  them  from  fire,  till  they  found 
that  clay  alone  would  answer  the  purpose,  and  thus  the  art  of 
pottery  came  into  the  world."— "Early  History  of  Minkind,"  p. 
273.  Goquet  relates  of  Capt.  Gonneville  who  visited  the  south- 
east coast  of  South  America  in  1503.  that  he  found  "their  house- 
hold utensils  of  wood,  even  their  boiling  pots,  but  plastered 
with  a  kind  of  clay,  a  good  finger  thick,  which  prevented  the 
fire  from  burning  them."— lb.  273. 


14  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

ber  of  forms;  but  the  Non-horticultural  Indians,  who 
were  in  the  Status  of  savagery,  such  as  the  Athapascans, 
the  tribes  of  California  and  of  the  valley  of  the  Colum- 
bia, were  ignorant  of  its  use.^  In  Lubbock's  Pre-His- 
toric  Times,  in  Tylor's  Early  History  of  Mankind,  and 
in  Peschel's  Races  of  Man,  the  particulars  respecting  this 
art,  and  the  extent  of  its  distribution,  have  been  collected 
with  remarkable  breadth  of  research.  It  was  unknown 
in  Polynesia  (with  the  exception  of  the  Islands  of  the 
Tongans  and  Fijians),  in  Australia,  in  California,  and 
in  the  Hudson's  Bay  Territory.  Mr.  Tylor  remarks  that 
"the  art  of  weaving  was  unknown  in  most  of  the  Islands 
away  from  Asia,"  and  that  "in  most  of  the  South  Sea 
Islands  there  was  no  knowledge  of  pottery.":  ^  The  Rev. 
Lorimer  Fison,  an  English  missionary  residing  in  Au- 
stralia, informed  the  author  in  answer  to  inquiries,  that 
"the  Australians  had  no  woven  fabrics,  no  pottery,  and 
were  ignorant  of  the  bow  and  arrow."  This  last  fact 
was  also  true  in  general  of  the  Polynesians.  The  intro- 
duction of  the  ceramic  art  produced  a  new  epoch  in 
human  progress  in  the  direction  of  an  improved  living 
and  increased  domestic  conveniences.  While  flint  and 
stone  implements  —  which  came  in  earlier  and  required 
long  periods  of  time  to  develop  all  their  uses  —  gave  the 
canoe,  wooden  vessels  and  utensils,  and  ultimately  tim- 
ber and  plank  in  house  architecture,  ^  potter}'  gave  a  dur- 
able vessel  for  boiling  food,  which  before  that  had  been 
rudely   accomplished  in  baskets  coated  with  clay,  and  in 

1  Pottery  has    been    found    in     aboriginal     mounds     in    Oregon 


y\  UUI  Ifi  llltro     KJL      Llic      ,_JinLcv-i     ounLco      oc-^jii      L"i      lltiv^        utr'CII        lllttut;        ill 

baskets  of  rushes  or  willows  used  as  moulds  which  were  burned 
off  after  the  vessel  hardened.— Jones's  "Antiquities  of  the 
Southern  Indians,"  p.  461.  Prof.  Rau's  article  on  "Pottery." 
"Smithsonian  Report,"  1866,  p.  352. 

*  "Early  History  of  Mankind,"  p.  181:  'TPre-Historic  Times." 
pp.   437.   441.    462,    477,   o33,   542. 

»  Lewis  and  Clarke  (1805)  found  plank  in  use  in  houses  among 
the  tribes  of  the  Columbia  River.— "Travels,"  Longman's  Ed., 
1814,  p.   503.     Mr.  John   Keast   Lord  found   "cedar  plank  chipped 

from  the  solid  tree  with  chisels  and  hatchets  made  of  stone." 
In  Indian  houses  on  Vancouver's  Island.— "Naturalist  in  British 
Columbia,"  I,  169. 


ftTHNICAL    PERIODS  15 

.r^round  cavities  lined  with  skin,  the  boiling  being  effected 

with  heated  stones.^ 

Whether  the  pottery  of  the  aborigines  was  hardened 
by  fire  or  cured  by  the  simple  process  of  drying,  has  been 
made  a  question.  Prof  E.  T.  Cox,  of  Indianapolis,  has 
shown  by  comparing  the  analyses  of  ancient  pottery  and 
hydraulic  cements,  "that  so  far  as  chemical  constituents 
are  concerned  it  (the  pottery)  agrees  very  well  with  the 
composition  of  hydraulic  stones."  He  remarks  further, 
that  "all  the  pottery  belonging  to  the  mound-builders' 
age,  which  I  have  seen,  is  composed  of  alluvial  clay  and 
sand,  or  a  mixture  of  the  former  with  pulverized  fresh- 
water shells.  A  paste  made  of  such  a  mixture  possesses 
in  a  high  degree  the  properties  of  hydraulic  Puzzuolani 
and  Portland  cement,  so  that  vessels  formed  of  it  hard- 
ened without  being  burned,  as  is  customary  with  modern 
pottery.  The  fragments  of  shells  served  the  purpose  of 
gravel  or  fragments  of  stone  as  at  present  used  in  con- 
nection with  hydraulic  lime  for  the  manufacture  of  arti- 
ficial stone."  The  composition  of  Indian  pottery  in  an- 
alog)^ with  that  of  hydraulic  cement  suggests  the  difficul- 
ties in  the  way  of  inventing  the  art.  and  tends  also  to 
explain  the  lateness  of  its  introduction  in  the  course  of 
human  experience.  Notwithstanding  the  ingenious  sug- 
gestion of  Prof.  Cox,  it  is  probable  that  pottery  was  hard- 
ened by  artificial  heat.  In  some  cases  the  fact  is  directly 
attested.  Thus  Adair,  speaking  of  the  Gulf  Tribes,  re- 
marks that  "they  make  earthen  pots  of  very  different 
sizes,  so  as  to  contain  from  two  to  ten  gallons,  large 
pitchers  to  carry  water,  bowls,  dishes,  platters,  basins, 
and  a  prodigious  number  of  other  vessels  of  such  anti- 
quated forms  as  would  be  tedious  to  describe,  and  im- 
possible to  name.    Their  method  of  glazing  them  is,  they 

*  Tylor's   "Early   History   of  Mankind."   p.   265.    "et   seq." 
'  '•Geological   Survey    of   Indiana,"    1873.   p.    119.     He    gives   the 
following   analysis:     Ancient   Pottery,    "Bone   Bank,"   Posey  Co.. 
Indiana. 

Moisture   at   212o     F.,       1.00  Peroxide   of  Iron,  5.50 

Silica,  36.00  Sulphuric   Acid,  .20 

Carbonate   of  Lime.        25.50  Organic    Matter    (alka- 

Carbonate  of  Magnesia.  3.02  lies  and  loss),  23.60 

Alumina,  5.00  ■ — ■ 

100.00 


in  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

place  them  over  a  large  fire  of  smoky  pitch-pine,  which 
makes  them  smooth,  black  and  firm."^ 

Another  advantage  of  fixing  definite  ethnical  periods 
is  the  direction  of  special  investigation  to  those  tribes 
and  nations  which  afford  the  best  exemplification  of  each 
status,  with  the  view  of  making  each  both  standard  and 
illustrative.  Some  tribes  and  families  have  been  left  in 
geographical  isolation  to  work  out  the  problems  of  prog- 
ress by  original  mental  effort ;  and  have,  consequently, 
retained  their  arts  and  institutions  pure  and  homogene- 
ous ;  while  those  of  other  tribes  and  nations  have  been 
adulterated  through  external  influence.  Thus,  while 
Africa  was  and  is  an  ethnical  chaos  of  savagery  and  bar- 
barism, Australia  and  Polynesia  were  in  savagery,  pure 
and  simple,  with  the  arts  and  institutions  belonging  to 
that  condition.  In  like  manner,  the  Indian  family  of 
America,  unlike  anv  other  existing  family,  exemplified 
the  condition  of  mankind  in  three  successive  ethnical 
periods.  In  the  undisturbed  possession  of  a  great  con- 
tinent, of  common  descent,  and  with  homogeneous  insti- 
tutions, they  illustrated,  when  discovered,  each  of  these 
conditions,  and  especially  those  of  the  Lower  and  of  the 
Middle  Status  of  barbarism,  more  elaborately  and  com- 
pletely than  any  other  portion  of  mankind.  The  far 
northern  Indians  and  some  of  the  coast  tribes  of  North 
and  South  America  were  in  the  Upper  Status  of  savag- 
ery;  the  partially  Village  Indians  east  of  the  Mississippi 
were  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  and  the  Village 
Indians  of  North  and  South  America  were  in  the  Mid- 
dle Status.  Such  an  opportunity  to  recover  full  and  min- 
ute information  of  the  course  of  human  experience  and 
progress  in  developing  their  arts  and  institutions  through 
these  successive  conditions  has  not  been  offered  within 
the  historical  period.  It  must  be  added  that  it  has  been 
indifferently  improved.  Our  greatest  deficiencies  relate 
to  the  last  period  named. 

Differences  in  the  culture  of  the  same  period  in  the 

^  "History  of  the  American  Infilan-s,"  Lond.  f^cl..  J 775,  p.  424. 
The  Iroquois  affirm  that  in  ancient  times  their  forefather* 
pured  their  pottery  before  a  fire. 


ETHNICAL   PERIODS  17 

Eastern  and  Western  hemispheres  undoubtedly  existed 
in  consequence  of  the  unequal  endowments  of  the  conti- 
nents ;  but  the  condition  of  society  in  the  corresponding 
status  must  have  been,  in  the  main,  substantially  similar. 

The  ancestors  of  the  Grecian,  Roman,  and  German 
tribes  passed  through  the  stages  we  have  indicated,  in 
the  midst  of  the  last  of  which  the  light  of  history  fell 
upon  them.  Their  dififerentiation  from  the  undistin- 
guishable  mass  of  barbarians  did  not  occur,  probably, 
earlier  than  the  commencement  of  the  Middle  Period  oi 
barbarism.  The  experience  oi  these  tribes  has  been  lost, 
with  the  exception  of  so  much  as  is  represented  by  the 
institutions,  inventions  and  discoveries  which  they  had 
brought  with  them,  and  possessed  when  they  first  came 
under  historical  observation.  The  Grecian  and  Latin 
tribes  of  the  Homeric  and  Romulian  periods  afford  the 
highest  exemplification  of  the  Upper  Status  of  barbar- 
ism. Their  institutions  were  likewise  pure  and  homo- 
geneous, and  their  experience  stands  directly  connected 
with  the  final  achievement  of  civilization. 

Commencing,  then,  with  the  Australians  and  Polyne- 
sians, folloAving  with  the  American  Indian  tribes,  and 
concluding  with  the  Roman  and  Grecian,  who  afford  the 
highest  exemplifications  respectively  of  the  six  great 
stages  of  human  progress,  the  sum  of  their  united  expe- 
riences may  be  supposed  fairly  to  represent  that  of  the 
human  family  from  the  Middle  Status  of  savagery  to  the 
end  of  ancient  civilization.  Consequently,  the  Aryan  na- 
tions will  find  the  type  of  the  condition  of  their  remote 
ancestors,  when  in  savagery,  in  that  of  the  Australians 
and  Polynesians ;  when  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism 
in  that  of  the  partially  Village  Indians  of  America;  and 
when  in  the  Middle  Status  in  that  of  the  Village  Indians, 
with  which  their  own  experience  in  the  Upper  Status 
directly  connects.  So  essentially  identical  are  the  arts, 
institutions  and  mode  of  life  in  the  same  status  upon  all 
the  continents,  that  the  archaic  form  of  the  principal 
domestic  institutions  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  must 
even  now  be  sought  in  the  corresponding  institutions  of 
the  American  aborigines,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  course 


1§  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

of  this  volume.  This  fact  forms  a  part  of  the  accumu- 
lating evidence  tending  to  show  that  the  principal  insti- 
tutions of  mankind  have  been  developed  from  a  few  pri- 
mary germs  of  thought ;  and  that  the  course  and  man- 
ner of  their  development  was  predetermined,  as  well  as 
restricted  within  narrow  limits  of  divergence,  by  the  nat- 
ural logic  of  the  human  mind  and  the  necessary  limita- 
tions of  its  powers.  Progress  has  been  found  to  be  sub- 
stantially the  same  in  kind  in  tribes  and  nations  inhabit- 
ing different  and  even  disconnected  continents,  while  in 
the  same  status,  with  deviations  from  uniformity  in  par- 
ticular instances  produced  by  special  causes.  The  argu- 
ment when  extended  tends  to  establish  the  unity  of  origin 
of  mankind. 

In  studying  the  condition  of  tribes  and  nations  in  these 
several  ethnical  periods  we  are  dealing,  substantially, 
with  the  ancient  history  and  condition  of  our  own  remote 
ancestors. 


CHAPTER  II 


ARTS  OF  SUBSISTENCE 


The  important  fact  that  mankind  commenced  at  the 
bottom  of  the  scale  and  worked  up,  is  revealed  in  an 
expressive  manner  by  their  successive  arts  of  subsist- 
ence. Upon  their  skill  in  this  direction,  the  whole  ques- 
tion of  human  supremacy  on  the  earth  depended.  Man- 
kind are  the  only  beings  who  may  be  said  to  have  gained 
an  absolute  control  over  the  production  of  food ;  which 
at  the  outset  they  did  not  possess  above  other  animals. 
Without  enlarging  the  basis  of  subsistence,  mankind 
could  not  have  propagated  themselves  into  other  areas 
not  possessing  the  same  kinds  of  food,  and  ultimately 
over  the  whole  surface  of  the  earth ;  and  lastly,  without 
obtaining  an  absolute  control  over  both  its  variety  and 
amount,  they  could  not  have  multiplied  into  populous 
nations.  It  is  accordingly  probable  that  the  great  epochs 
of  human  progress  have  been  identified,  more  or  less  di- 
rectly, with  the  enlargement  of  the  sources  of  subsist- 
ence. 

We  are  able  to  distinguish  five  of  these  sources  of  hu- 
man food,  created  by  what  may  be  called  as  many  suc- 
cessive arts,  one  superadded  to  the  other,  and  brought 
out  at  long  separated  intervals  of  time.  The  first  two 
originated  in  the  period  of  savagery,  and  the  last  three, 
in  the  period  of  barbarism.  They  are  the  following, 
stated  in  the  order  of  their  appearance  : 

I.  Natural  Subsistence  upon  Fruits  and  Roots  on  a 
Restricted  Habitat. 


)0  ANCIENT  SOCIETT 

This  proposition  carries  us  back  to  the  strictly  primi- 
tive period  of  mankind,  when  few  in  numbers,  simple  in 
subsistence,  and  occupying  limited  areas,  they  were  just 
entering  upon  their  new  career.  There  is  neither  an  art, 
nor  an  institution,  that  can  be  referred  to  this  period ; 
and  but  one  invention,  that  of  language,  which  can  be 
connected  with  an  epoch  so  remote.  The  kind  of  sub- 
sistence indicated  assumes  a  tropical  or  subtropical  cli- 
mate. In  such  a  climate,  by  common  consent,  the  habitat 
of  primitive  man  has  been  placed.  In  fruit  and  nutbear- 
ing  forests  under  a  tropical  sun,  we  are  accustomed,  and 
with  reason,  to  regard  our  progenitors  as  having  com- 
menced their  existence. 

The  races  of  animals  preceded  the  race  of  mankind,  in 
the  order  of  time.  We  are  warranted  in  supposing  that 
they  were  in  the  plenitude  of  their  strength  and  num- 
bers when  the  human  race  first  appeared.  The  classical 
poets  pictured  the  tribes  of  mankind  dwelling  in  groves, 
in  caves  and  in  forests,  for  the  possession  of  which  they 
disputed  with  wild  beasts^  —  while  they  sustained  them- 
selves with  the  spontaneous  fruits  of  the  earth.  If  man- 
kind commenced  their  career  without  experience,  with- 
out weapons,  and  surrounded  with  ferocious  animals,  it 
is  not  improbable  that  they  were  at  least  partially,  tree- 
livers,  as  a  means  of  protection  and  security. 

The  maintenance  of  life,  through  the  constant  acqui- 
sition of  food,  is  the  great  burden  imposed  upon  exist- 
ence in  all  species  of  animals.  As  we  descend  in  the 
scale  of  structural  organization,  subsistence  becomes 
more  and  more  simple  at  each  stage,  until  the  mystery 
finally  vanishes.  But,  in  the  ascending  scale,  it  becomes 
increasingly  difficult  until  the  highest  structural  form, 
that  of  man,  is  reached,  when  it  attains  the  maximum. 
Intelligence  from  henceforth  becomes  a  more  prominent 
factor.  Animal  food,  in  all  probability,  entered  from  a 
very  early  period  into  human  consumption ;  but  whether 
it  was  actively  sought  when  mankind  were  essentially 
frugivorous  in  practice,  though  omnivorous  in  structural 

^  "Lucr.  De  Re.  Nat.,"  lib.  v,  951. 


AR*S  of  SUBSlStEi>JCE  |J 

organization,  must  remain  a  matter  of  conjecture.^  This 
mode  of  sustenance  belongs  to  the  strictly  primitive 
period. 

II.     Fish  Subsistence. 

In  fish  must  be  recognized  the  first  kind  of  artificial 
food,  because  it  was  not  fully  available  without  cooking. 
Fire  was  first  utilized,  not  unlikely,  for  this_  purpose. 
Fish  were  universal  in  distribution,  unlimited  in  supply, 
and  the  only  kind  of  food  at  all  times  attainable.  The 
cereals  in  the  primitive  period  were  still  unknown,  if  in 
fact  they  existed,  and  the  hunt  for  game  was  too  pre- 
carious ever  to  have  formed  an  exclusive  means  of  hu- 
man support.  Upon  this  species  of  food  mankind  became 
independent  of  climate  and  of  locality ;  and  by  following 
the  shores  of  the  seas  and  lakes,  and  the  courses  of  the 
rivers  could,  while  in  the  savage  state,  spread  themselves 
over  the  greater  portion  of  the  earth's  surface.  Of  the 
fact  of  these  migrations  there  is  abundant  evidence  in 
the  remains  of  flint  and  stone  implements  of  the  Status 
of  Savagery  found  upon  all  the  continents.  In  reliance 
upon  fruits  and  spontaneous  subsistence  a  removal  from 
the  original  habitat  would  have  been  impossible. 

Between  the  introduction  of  fish,  followed  by  the  wide 
migrations  named,  and  the  cultivation  of  farinaceous 
food,  the  interval  of  time  was  immense.  It  covers  a  large 
part  of  the  period  of  savagery.  But  during  this  interval 
there  was  an  important  increase  in  the  variety  and 
amount  of  food.  Such,  for  example,  as  the  bread  roots 
cooked  in  ground  ovens,  and  in  the  permanent  addition 
of  game  through  improved  weapons,  and  especially 
through  the  bow  and  arrow.  This  remarkable  invention, 
which  came  in  after  the  spear  war  club,  and  gave  the 
first  deadly  weapon  for  the  hunt,  appeared  late  in  savag- 
erv.       It  has  been  used  to  mark  the  commencement  of 


1  As  a  combination  of  forces  it  is  so  abstruse  that  it  not 
unlikely  owed  its  origin  to  accident.  The  elasticity  and  tough- 
ness of  certain  kinds  of  wood,  tlie  tension  of  a  cord  of  sinew 
or  vegetable  fibre  l>y  means  of  a  bent  bow,  and  finally  their 
combination  to  propel  an  arrow  by  human  muscle,  are  not  very 


18 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY 


its  Upper  Status.  It  must  have  given  a  powerful  upward 
influence  to  ancient  society,  standing  in  the  same  relation 
to  the  period  of  savagery,  as  the  iron  sword  to  the  period 
of  barbarism,  and  fire-arms  to  the  period  of  civilization. 

From  the  precarious  nature  of  all  these  sources  of 
food,  outside  of  the  great  fish  areas,  cannibalism  became 
the  dire  resort  of  mankind.  The  ancient  universality  of 
this  practice  is  being  gradually  demonstrated. 

III.     Farinaceous  Subsistence  through   Cultivation. 

We  now  leave  Savagery  and  enter  the  lower  Status 
of  barbarism.  The  cultivation  of  cereals  and  plants  was 
unknown  in  the  Western  hemisphere  except  among  the 
tribes  who  had  emerged  from  savagery ;  and  it  seems  to 
have  been  unknown  in  the  Eastern  hemisphere  until  after 
the  tribes  of  Asia  and  Europe  had  passed  through  the 
Lower,  and  had  drawn  near  ta  the  close  of  the  Middle 
Status  of  barbarism.  It  gives  us  the  singular  fact  that 
the  American  aborigines  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbar- 
ism were  in  possession  of  horticulture  one  entire  ethnical 
period  earlier  than  the  inhabitants  of  the  Eastern  hemi- 
sphere. It  was  a  consequence  of  the  unequal  endow- 
ments of  the  two  hemispheres;  the  Eastern  possessing 
all  the  animals  adapted  to  domestication,  save  one,  and 
a  majority  of  the  cereals ;  while  the  Western  had  only  one 
cereal  fit  for  cultivation,  but  that  the  best.  It  tended  to 
prolong  the  older  period  of  barbarism  in  the  former,  to 
shorten  it  in  the  latter;  and  with  the  advantage  of  con- 
dition in  this  period  in  favor  of  the  American  aborigines. 
But  when  the  most  advanced  tribes  in  the  Eastern  hemi- 
sphere, at  the  commencement  of  the  Middle  Period  of 
barbarism,  had  domesticated  animals  which  gave  them 
meat  and  milk,  their  condition,  without  a  knowledge  of 
the  cereals,  was  much  superior  to  that  of  the  American 
aborigines  in  the  corresponding  period,  with  maize  and 
plants,  but  without  domestic  animals.     The  dififerentia- 


obvlous  suggestions  to  the  mind  of  a  savage.  As  elsewhere 
noticed  the  bow  and  arrow  are  unknown  to  the  Polynesians  in 
general'  and  to  the  Australians.  From  this  fact  alone  it  18 
■hown  that  mankind  were  well  advanced  in  the  savage  stata 
when  the  bow  and  arrow  made  their  first  appearance. 


ARTS  OF  SUBSISTENCE  23 

tion  of  the  Semitic  and  Aryan  families  from  the  mass  of 
barbarians  seems  to  have  commenced  with  the  domesti- 
cation of  animals. 

That  the  discovery  and  cultivation  of  the  cereals  by 
the  Aryan  family  was  subsequent  to  the  domestication 
of  animals  is  shown  by  the  fact,  that  there  are  common 
terms  for  these  animals  in  the  several  dialects  of  the 
Aryan  language,  and  no  common  terms  for  the  cereals 
or  cultivated  plants.  Mommsen,  after  showing  that  the 
domestic  animal^  have  the  same  names  in  the  Sanskrit. 
Greek,  and  Latin  (which  Max  Miiller  afterwards  ex- 
tended to  the  remaining  Aryan  dialects  ^)  thus  proving 
that  they  were  known  and  presumptively  domesticated 
before  the  separation  of  these  nations  from  each  other, 
proceeds  as  follows  :  "On  the  other  hand,  we  have  as 
yet  no  certain  proofs  of  the  existence  of  agriculture  at 
this  period.  Language  rather  favors  the  negative  view. 
Of  the  Latin-Greek  names  of  grain  none  occur  in  the 
Sanskrit  with  the  single  exception  of  zea,  which  philo- 
logically  represents  the  Sanskrit  yavas,  but  denotes  in 
Indian,  barley ;  in  Greek,  spelt.  It  must  indeed  be 
granted  that  this  diversity  in  the  names  of  cultivated 
plants,  which  so  strongly  contrasts  with  the  essential 
agreement  in  the  appellations  of  domestic  animals,  does 
not  absolutely  preclude  the  supposition  of  a  common 
original  agriculture.  The  cultivation  of  rice  among  the 
Indians,  that  of  wheat  and  spelt  among  the  Greeks,  and 
that  of  rve  and  oats  among  the  Germans  and  Celts,  may 
all  be  traceable  to  a  common  system  of  original  tillage."* 
This  last  conclusion  is  forced.  Horticulture  preceded 
field  culture,  as  the  garden  (Jwrtos)  preceded  the  field 
(ager)  ;  and  although  the  latter  implies  boundaries,  the 
former  signifies  directly  an  "inclosed  space."  Tillage, 
however,  must  have  been  older  than  the  inclosed  garden ; 
the  natural  order  being  first,  tillage  of  patches  of  open 
alluvial  land,^  second  of  inclosed  spaces  or  gardens,  and 
third,  of  the  field  by  means  of  the  plow  drawn  by  animal 


1  "Chips  from  a  German  Workshop,"  Comp.  Table.   11,  p.  42. 
«  "History  of  Rome,"  Scribner's  ed.,  1871,  I,  p.  38. 


24  ANCIENT  SOCIET"^ 

power.  Whether  the  cuUivation  of  such  plants  as  the 
pea,  bean,  turnip,  parsnip,  beet,  squash  and  melon,  one 
or  more  of  them,  preceded  the  cultivation  of  the  cereals, 
we  have  at  present  no  means  of  knowing.  Some  of  these 
have  common  terms  in  Greek  and  Latin ;  but  I  am  as- 
sured by  our  eminent  philologist,  Prof.  W.  D.  Whitney, 
that  neither  of  them  has  a  common  term  in  Greek  or 
Latin  and  Sanskrit. 

Horticulture  seems  to  have  originated  more  in  the 
necessities  of  the  domestic  animals  than  'in  those  of  man- 
kind. In  the  Western  hemisphere  it  commenced  with 
maize.  This  new  era,  although  not  synchronous  in  the 
two  hemispheres,  had  immense  influence  upon  the  des- 
tiny of  mankind.  There  are  reasons  for  believing  that  it 
requires  ages  to  establish  the  art  of  cultivation,  and 
render  farinaceous  food  a  principal  reliance.  Since  in 
America  it  led  to  localization  and  to  village  life,  it  tended, 
especially  among  the  Village  Indians,  to  take  the  place 
of  fish  and  game.  From  the  cereals  and  cultivated  plants, 
moreover,  mankind  obtained  their  first  impression  of  the 
possibility  of  an  abundance  of  food. 

The  acquisition  of  farinaceous  food  in  America  and 
of  domestic  animals  in  Asia  and  Europe,  were  the  means 
of  delivering  the  advanced  tribes,  thus  provided,  from 
the  scourge  of  cannibalism,  which  as  elsewhere  stated, 
there  are  reasons  for  believing  was  practiced  universally 
throughout  the  period  of  savagery  upon  captured  ene- 
mies, and,  in  time  of  famine,  upon  friends  and  kindred. 
Cannibalism  in  war,  practiced  by  war  parties  in  the  field, 
survived  among  the  American  aborigines,  not  only  in  the 
Lower,  but  also  in  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism,  as, 
for  example,  among  the  Iroquois  and  the  Aztecs ;  but  the 
general  practice  had  disappeared.  This  forcibly  illus- 
trates the  great  importance  which  is  exercised  by  a  per- 
manent increase  of  food  in  ameliorating  the  condition  of 
mankind. 

IV.     Meat  and  Milk  Subsistence. 

The  absence  of    animals  adapted  to  domestication  in 


ARTS  OF  SUBSISTENCE  25 

the  Western  hemisphere,  excepting  the  llama,  ^  and  the 
specific  dififerences  in  the  cereals  of  the  two  hemispheres 
exercised  an  important  influence  upon  the  relative  ad- 
vancement of  their  inhabitants.  While  this  inequality  of 
endowments  was  immaterial  to  mankind  in  the  period  of 
savagery,  and  not  marked  in  its  effects  in  the  Lower 
Status  of  barbarism,  it  made  an  essential  difference  with 
that  portion  who  had  attained  to  the  Middle  Status,  The 
domestication  of  animals  provided  a  permanent  meat  and 
milk  subsistence  which  tended  to  differentiate  the  tribes 
wdiich  possessed  them  from  the  mass  of  other  barbarians. 
In  the  Western  hemisphere,  meat  was  restricted  to  the 
precarious  supplies  of  game.  This  limitation  upon  an 
essential  species  of  food  was  unfavorable  to  the  \'illage 
Indians ;  and  doubtless  sufficiently  explains  the  inferior 
size  of  the  brain  among  them  in  comparison  with  that  of 
Indians  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism.  In  the  East- 
ern hemisphere,  the  domestication  of  animals  enabled  the 
thrifty  and  industrious  to  secure  for  themselves  a  per- 
manent supply  of  animal  food,  including  milk ;  the  health- 
ful and  invigorating  influence  of  which  upon  the  race, 
and  especially  upon  children,  was  undoubtedly  remark- 
able. It  is  at  least  supposable  that  the  Aryan  and  Sem- 
itic families  owe  their  pre-eminent  endowments  to  the 
great  scale  upon  which,  as  far  back  as  our  knowledge 
extends,  they  have  identified  themselves  with  the  main- 
tenance in  numbers  of  the  domestic  animals.  In  fact, 
they  incorporated  them,  flesh,  milk,  and  muscle  into  their 
plan  of  life.  No  other  family  of  mankind  have  done  this 
to  an  equal  extent,  and  the  Aryan  have  done  it  to  a 
greater  extent  than  the  Semitic. 

The  domestication  of  animals  gradually  introduced  a 
new  mode  of  life,  the  pastoral,  upon  the  plains  of    the 

'  The  early  Spanish  writers  speak  of  a  "dumb  dog"  found 
domesticated  in  the  West  India  Islands,  and  also  in  Mexico  and 
Central  America.  (See  figures  of  the  Aztec  dog  in  pi.  ill,  vol. 
I,  of  Clavigero's  "History  of  Mexico").  I  have  seen  no  identi- 
fication of  the  animal.  They  also  speak  of  poultry  as  well  as 
turkeys  on  the  continent.  The  aborigines  had  domesticated  the 
turkey,   and  the  Nahuatlac  tribes  some  species  of  wild  fowl. 

8  We  learn  from  the  Iliad  that  the  Greeks  milked  their  sheep, 
KB  well  as  their  cows  and  goats.     See  "Iliad,"  iv,  433. 


^6  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

Euphrates  and  of  India,  and  upon  the  steppes  of  Asia; 
on  the  confines  of  one  or  the  other  of  which  the  domesti- 
cation of  animals  was  probably  first  accomplished.  To 
these  areas,  their  oldest  traditions  and  their  histories 
alike  refer  them.  They  were  thus  drawn  to  regions 
which,  so  far  from  being  the  cradle  lands  of  the  human 
race,  were  areas  they  would  not  have  occupied  as  savages, 
or  as  barbarians  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  to 
whom  forest  areas  were  natural  homes.  After  becoming 
habituated  to  pastoral  life,  it  must  have  been  impossible 
for  either  of  these  families  to  re-enter  the  forest  areas 
of  Western  Asia  and  of  Europe  with  their  flocks  and 
herds,  without  first  learning  to  cultivate  some  of  the 
cereals  with  which  to  subsist  the  latter  at  a  distance  from 
the  grass  plains.  It  seems  extremely  probable,  therefore, 
as  before  stated,  that  the  cultivation  of  the  cereals  origi- 
nated in  the  necessities  of  the  domestic  animals,  and  in 
connection  with  these  western  migrations ;  and  that  the 
use  of  farinaceous  food  by  these  tribes  was  a  consequence 
of  the  knowledge  thus  acquired. 

In  the  Western  hemisphere,  the  aborigines  were  ena- 
bled to  advance  generally  into  the  Lower  Status  of  bar- 
barism, and  a  portion  of  them  into  the  Middle  Status, 
without  domestic  animals,  excepting  the  llama  in  Peru, 
and  upon  a  single  cereal,  maize,  with  the  adjuncts  of  the 
bean,  squash,  and  tobacco,  and  in  some  areas,  cacao,  cot- 
ton and  pepper.  But  maize,  from  its  growth  in  the  hill 
—  which  favored  direct  cultivation  —  from  its  useable- 
ness  both  green  and  ripe,  and  from  its  abundant  yield 
and  nutritive  properties,  was  a  richer  endowment  in  aid 
of  early  human  progress  than  all  other  cereals  put  to- 
gether. It  serves  to  explain  the  remarkable  progress  the 
American  aborigines  had  made  without  the  domestic 
animals ;  the  Peruvians  having  produced  bronze,  which 
stands  next,  and  quite  near,  in  the  order  of  time,  to  the 
process  of  smelting  iron  ore. 

V.     Unlimited  Subsistence  through  Field  Agriculture. 

The  domestic  animals  supplementing  human  muscle 
with  animal  power,  contributed  a  new  factor  of  the  high- 
est value.    In  course  of  time,  the  production  of  iron  gave 


ARTS  OF  SUBSISTENCE  ^t 

the  plow  with  an  iron  point,  and  a  better  spade  and  axe. 
Out  of  these,  and  the  previous  horticulture,  came  field 
agriculture;  and  with  it,  for  the  first  time,  unlimited 
subsistence.  The  plow  drawn  by  animal  power  may  be 
regarded  as  inaugurating  a  new  art.  Now,  for  the  first 
time,  came  the  thought  of  reducing  the  forest,  and  bring- 
ing wide  fields  under  cultivation.  ^  Moreover,  dense  pop- 
ulations in  limited  areas  now  became  possible.  Prior  to 
field  agriculture  it  is  not  probable  that  half  a  million  peo- 
ple were  developed  and  held  together  under  one  govern- 
ment in  -any  part  of  the  earth.  If  exceptions  occurred, 
they  must  have  resulted  from  pastoral  life  on  the  plains, 
or  from  horticulture  improved  by  irrigation,  under  pecu- 
liar and  exceptional  conditions. 

In  the  course  of  these  pages  it  will  become  necessary 
to  speak  of  the  family  as  it  existed  in  different  ethnical 
periods;  its  form  in  one  period  being  sometimes  entirely 
different  from  its  form  in  another.  In  Part  III  these 
several  forms  of  the  family  will  be  treated  specially.  But 
as  they  will  be  frequently  mentioned  in  the  next  ensuing 
Part,  they  should  at  least  be  defined  in  advance  for  the 
information  of  the  reader.     They  are  the  following: 

I.  The  Consanguine  Family. 

It  was  founded  upon  the  intermarriage  of  brothers  and 
sisters  in  a  group.  Evidence  still  remains  in  the  oldest 
of  existing  systems  of  Consanguinity,  the  Malayan,  tend- 
ing to  show  that  this,  the  first  form  of  the  family,  was 
anciently  as  universal  as  this  system  of  consanguinity 
which  it  created. 

II.  The  Ptinaluan  Family. 

Its  name  is  derived  from  the  Hawaiian  relationship  of 
Punalna.  It  was  founded  upon  the  intermarriage  of 
several  brothers  to  each  other's  wives  in  a  group ;  and  of 
several  sisters  to  each  other's  husbands  in  a  group.  But 
the  term  brother,  as  here  used,  included  the  first,  second, 
third,  and  even  more  remote  male  cousins,  all  of  whom 
were  considered  brothers  to  each  other,  as  we  consider 
own  brothers :  and  the  term  sister  included  the  first,  sec- 

1  "Lucr.  De  Re.  Nat.,"  v,  1369. 


gg  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

ond,  third,  and  even  more  remote  female  cousins,  all  of 
whom  were  sisters  to  each  other,  the  same  as  own  sis- 
ters. This  form  of  the  family  supervened  upon  the  con- 
sanguine. It  created  the  Turanian  and  Ganowanian  sys- 
tems of  consanguinity.  Both  this  and  the  previous  form 
belong  to  the  period  of  savagery. 

III.  The  Syndyasinian  Family. 

The  term  is  from  syndyaco,  to  pair,  syndyasmos,  a 
joining  two  together.  It  was  founded  upon  the  pairing 
of  a  male  with  a  female  under  the  form  of  marriage,  but 
without  an  exclusive  cohabitation.  It  was  the  germ  of 
the  Alonogamian  Family.  Divorce  or  separation  was  at 
the  option  of  both  husband  and  wife.  This  form  of  the 
family  failed  to  create  a  system  of  consanguinity. 

IV.  The  Patriarchal  Family. 

It  was  founded  upon  the  marriage  of  one  man  to  sev- 
eral wives.  The  term  is  here  used  in  a  restricted  sense 
to  define  the  special  family  of  the  Hebrew  pastoral  tribes, 
the  chiefs  and  principal  men  of  which  practiced  polyg- 
amy. It  exercised  but  little  influence  upon  human  affairs 
for  want  of  universality. 

V.  The  Monogamian  Family. 

It  was  founded  upon  the  marriage  of  one  man  with 
one  woman,  with  an  exclusive  cohabitation ;  the  latter 
constituting  the  essential  element  of  the  institution.  It 
is  pre-eminently  the  family  of  civilized  society,  and  was 
therefore  essentially  modern.  This  form  of  the  family 
also  created  an  independent  system  of  consanguinity. 

Evidence  will  elsewhere  be  produced  tending  to  show 
both  the  existence  and  the  general  prevalence  of  these 
several  forms  of  the  family  at  different  stages  of  human 
progress. 


CHAPTER  III 

R,\TIO  OF    HUMAN    PROGRESS 

It  is  well  to  obtain  an  impression  of  the  relative  amount 
and  of  the  ratio  of  human  progress  in  the  several  ethnical 
periods  named,  by  grouping  together  the  achievements 
of  each,  and  comparing  them  with  each  other  as  distinct 
classes  of  facts.  This  will  also  enable  us  to  form  some 
conception  of  the  relative  duration  of  these  periods.  To 
render  it  forcible,  such  a  survey  must  be  general,  and  in 
the  nature  of  a  recapitulation.  It  should,  likewise,  be 
limited  to  the  principal  works  of  each  period. 

Before  man  could  have  attained  to  the  civilized  state  it 
was  necessary  that  he  should  gain  all  the  elements  of 
civilization.  This  implies  an  amazing  change  of  condi- 
tion, first  from  a  primitive  savage  to  a  barbarian  of  the 
lowest  type,  and  then  from  the  latter  to  a  Greek  of  the 
Homeric  period,  or  to  a  Hebrew  of  the  time  of  Abraham. 
The  progressive  development  which  history  records  in 
the  period  of  civilization  was  not  less  true  of  man  in  each 
of  the  previous  periods. 

By  re-ascending  along  the  several  lines  of  human 
progress  toward  the  primitive  ages  of  man's  existence, 
and  removing  one  by  one  his  principal  institutions,  inven- 
tions, and  discoveries,  in  the  order  in  which  thev  have 
appeared,  the  advance  made  in  each  period  will  be  real- 
ized. 

The  principal  contributions  of  modern  civilization  are 
the  electric  telegraph  :  coal  gas ;  the  spinning-jenny  ;  and 
the  power  loom ;  the  steam-engine  with  its  numerous 
dependent  machines,  including  the  locomotive,  the  rail- 
so 


90  • -'AjJSfEJfT  SOCIETY 

way,  and  the  steam-ship;  the  telescope;  the  discover/  oi 
the  ponderabiHty  of  the  atmosphere  and  of  the  Lo'ar  sys- 
tem; the  art  of  printing;  the  canal  lock;  the  mariner's 
compass ;  and  gunpowder.  The  mass  of  other  inven- 
tions, such,  for  example,  as  the  Ericsson  propeller,  will 
be  found  to  hinge  upon  one  or  another  of  those  named 
as  antecedents :  but  there  are  exceptions,  as  photography, 
and  numerous  machines  not  necessary  to  be  noticed. 
With  these  also  should  be  removed  the  modern  sciences ; 
religious  freedom  and  the  common  schools ;  representa- 
tive democracy ;  constitutional  monarchy  with  parlia- 
ments ;  the  feudal  kingdom ;  modern  privileged  classes ; 
international,  statute  and  common  law. 

Modern  civilization  recovered  and  absorbed  whatever 
was  valuable  in  the  ancient  civilizations  arid  although  its 
contributions  to  the  sum  of  human  knov/ledge  have  been 
vast,  brilliant  and  rapid,  they  are  far  from  being  so  dis- 
proportionately large  as  to  overshadow  thv::  ancient  civili- 
zations and  sink  them  into  comparative    msignificance. 

Passing  over  the  mediaeval  period,  Vv^hich  gave  Gothic 
architecture,  feudal  aristocracy  with  hereditary  titles  of 
rank,  and  a  hierarchy  under  the  headship  of  a  pope,  we 
enter  the  Roman  and  Grecian  civilizations.  They  will  be 
found  deficient  in  great  inventions  and  discoveries,  but 
distinguished  in  art,  in  philosophy,  and  in  organic  insti- 
tutions. The  principal  contributions  of  these  civiliza- 
tions were  imperial  and  kingly  government ;  the  civil 
law ;  Christianity ;  mixed  aristocratical  and  democratical 
government,  with  a  senate  and  consuls ;  democratical  gov- 
ernment with  a  council  and  popular  assembly ;  the  organ- 
ization of  armies  intd  cavalry  and  infantry,  with  military 
discipline ;  the  establishment  of  navies,  with  the  practice 
of  naval  warfare ;  the  formation  of  great  cities,  with 
municipal  law ;  commerce  on  the  seas ;  the  coinage  of 
money ;  and  the  state,  founded  upon  territory  and  upon 
l)roperty ;  and  among  inventions,  fire-baked  brick,  the 
crane,  ^  the   water-wheel   for  driving  mills,  the    bridge, 


-  The  Egyptians  may  have  invented  the  crane  (See  HerodotuB, 
11,  125).    They  also  had  the  balance  scale. 


RATIO  OF  HUMAN  PROGRESS  31 

acqueduct  and  sewer;  lead  pipe  used  as  a  conduit  with 
the  faucet;  the  arch,  the  balance  scale;  the  arts  and  sci- 
ences of  the  classical  period,  with  their  results,  includ- 
ing the  orders  of  architecture ;  the  Arabic  numerals,  and 
alphabetic  writing. 

These  civilizations  drew  largely  from,  as  well  as  rested 
upon,  the  inventions  and  discoveries  and  the  institutions 
of  the  previous  period  of  barbarism.  The  achievements 
of  civilized  man,  although  very  great  and  remarkable, 
are  nevertheless  very  far  from  sufficient  to  eclipse  the 
works  of  man  as  a  barbarian.  As  such  he  had  wrought 
out  and  possessed  all  the  elements'  of  civilization,  except- 
ing alphabetic  writing.  His  achievements  as  a  barbarian 
should  be  considered  in  their  relation  to  the  sum  of  hu- 
man progress ;  and  we  may  be  forced  to  admit  that  they 
transcend,  in  relative  importance,  all  his  subsequent 
works. 

The  use  of  writing,  or  its  equivalent  in  hieroglyphics 
upon  stone,  affords  a  fair  test  of  the  commencement  of 
civilization.^  Without  literary  records  neither  history 
nor  civilization  can  properly  be  said  to  exist.  The  pro- 
duction of  the  Homeric  poems,  whether  transmitted 
orally  or  committed  to  writing  at  the  time,  fixes  with 
sufficient  nearness  the  introduction  of  civilization  among 
the  Greeks.  These  poems,  ever  fresh  and  ever  marvel- 
ous, possess  an  ethnological  value  which  enhances  im- 
mensely their  other  excellences.  This  is  especially  true 
of  the  Iliad,  which  contains  the  oldest  as  well  as  the  most 
circumstantial  account  now  existing  of  the  progress  of 
mainkind  up  to  the  time  of  its  composition.  Strabo  com- 
pliments Homer  as  the  father  of  geographical  science ;  ^ 


*  The  phonetic  alphabet  came,  like  other  great  inventions,  at 
the  end  of  successive  efforts.  The  slow  Egyptian,  advancing 
the  hieroglyph  through  its  several  forms,  had  reached  a  sylla- 
bus composed  of  phonetic  characters,  and  at  this  stage  was 
resting  upon  his  labors.  He  could  write  in  permanent  charac- 
ters upon  stone.  Then  came  in  the  inquisitive  Phoenician,  the 
first  navigator  and  trader  on  the  sea,  who.  whether  previously 
versed  in  hieroglyphs  or  otherwise,  seems  to  have  entered  at  a 
bound  upon  the  labors  of  the  Egyptian,  and  by  an  inspiration 
of  genius  to  have  mastered  the  problem  over  which  the  latter 
was  dreaming.  He  produced  that  wondrous  alphabet  of  sixteen 
letters  which  In  time  gave  to  mankind  a  written  language  and 
the  means  for  literary  and  historical  records. 

*  "Strabo,"  I,  i,  


32  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

but  the  great  poet  has  given,  perhaps  without  design, 
what  was  infinitely  more  irnportant  to  succeeding  genera- 
tions :  namely,  a  remarkably  full  exposition  of  the  arts, 
usages,  inventions  and  discoveries,  and  mode  of  life  of 
the  ancient  Greeks.  It  presents  our  first  comprehensive 
picture  of  Aryan  society  while  still  in  barbarism,  show- 
ing the  progress  then  made,  and  of  what  particulars  it 
consisted.  Through  these  poems  we  are  enabled  confi- 
dently to  state  that  certain  things  were  known  among 
the  Greeks  before  they  entered  civilization.  They  also 
cast  an  illuminating  light  far  backward  into  the  period  of 
barbarism. 

Using  the  Homeric  poems  as  a  guide  and  continuing 
the  retrospect  into  the  Later  Period  of  barbarism,  let  us 
strike  oflf  from  the  knowledge  and  experience  of  man- 
kind the  invention  of  poetry ;  the  ancient  mythology  in 
its  elaborate  form,  with  the  Olympian  divinities ;  temple 
architecture ;  the  knowledge  of  the  cereals,  excepting 
mai^e  and  cultivated  plants,  with  field  agriculture ;  cities 
encompassed  with  walls  of  stone,  with  battlements,  tow- 
ers and  gates ;  the  use  of  marble  in  architecture ;  ship- 
building with  plank  and  probably  with  the  use  of  nails ; 
the  wagon  and  the  chariot ;  metallic  plate  armor ;  the 
copper-pointed  spear  and  embossed  shield ;  the  iron 
sword ;  the  manufacture  of  wine,  probably ;  the  mechan- 
ical powers  excepting  the  screw ;  the  potter's  wheel  and 
the  hand-mill  for  grinding  grain ;  woven  fabrics  of  linen 
and  woolen  from  the  loom ;  the  iron  axe  and  spade ;  the 
iron  hatchet  and  adz ;  the  hammer  and  the  anvil ;  the  bel- 
lows and  the  forge ;  and  the  side-hill  furnace  for  smelt- 
ing iron  ore,  together  with  a  knowledge  of  iron.  Along 
with  the  above-named  acquisitions  must  be  removed  the 
monogamian  family ;  military  democracies  of  the  heroic 
age ;  the  later  phase  of  the  organization  into  gentes,  phrat- 
ries  and  tribes ;  the  agora  or  popular  assembly,  probably ; 
a  knowledge  of  individual  property  in  houses  and  lands ; 
and  the  advanced  form  of  municipal  life  in  fortified  cities. 
When  this  has  been  done,  the  highest  class  of  barbarians 
will  have  surrendered  the  principal  portion  of  their  mar- 


RATIO  OF  HUMAN  PROGRESS  33 

velous  works,  together  with  the  mental  and  moral  growth 
thereby  acquired. 

From  this  point  backward  through  the  Middle  Period 
of  barbarism  the  indications  become  less  distinct,  and  the 
relative  order  in  which  institutions,  inventions  and  dis- 
coveries appeared  is  less  clear;  but  we  are  not  without 
some  knowledge  to  guide  our  steps  even  in  these  distant 
ages  of  the  Aryan  family.  For  reasons  previously  stated, 
other  families,  besides  the  Aryan,  may  now  be  resorted 
to  for  the  desired  information. 

Entering  next  the  Middle  Period,  let  us,  in  like  man- 
ner, strike  out  of  human  experience  the  process  of  mak- 
ing bronze ;  flocks  and  herds  of  domestic  animals ;  com- 
munal houses  with  walls  of  adobe,  and  of  dressed  stone 
laid  in  courses  with  mortar  of  lime  and  sand ;  cyclopean 
walls  ;  lake  dwellings  constructed  on  piles  ;  the  knowledge 
of  native  metals.^  with  the  use  of  charcoal  and  the  cruci- 
ble for  melting  them ;  the  copper  axe  and  chisel ;  the 
shuttle  and  embryo  loom ;  cultivation  by  irrigation,  cause- 
ways, reservoirs  and  irrigating  canals  ;  paved  roads  ;  osier 
suspension  bridges ;  personal  gods,  with  a  priesthood  dis- 
tinguished by  a  costume,  and  organized  in  a  hierarchy; 
human  sacrifices  ;  military  democracies  of  the  Aztec  type ; 
woven  fabrics  of  cotton  and  other  vegetable  fibre  in  the 
Western  hemisphere,  and  of  wool  and  flax  in  the  East- 
ern ;  ornamental  pottery ;  the  sword  of  wood,  with  the 
edges  pointed  with  flints ;  polished  flint  and  stone  imple- 
ments ;  a  knowledge  of  cotton  and  flax ;  and  the  domestic 
animals. 

The  aggregate  of  achievements  in  this  period  was  less 
than  in  that  which  followed;  but  in  its  relations  to  the 
sum  of  human  progress  it  was  very  great.  It  includes 
the  domestication  of  animals  in  the  Eastern  hemisphere, 
which  introduced  in  time  a  permanent  meat  and  milk 
subsistence,  and  ultimately  field  agriculture;  and  also  in- 
augurated those  experiments  with  the  native  metals  which 

»  Homer  mentions  the  native  metals;  but  they  were  known 
long  before  his  time,  and  before  iron.  The  use  of  charcoal  and 
the  crucible  in  melting  them  prepared  the  way  for  smelting 
Iron  ore. 


34  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

resulted  in  producing  bronze,^  as  well  as  prepared  the 
way  for  the  higher  process  of  smelting  iron  ore.  In  the 
Western  hemisphere  it  was  signalized  by  the  discovery 
and  treatment  of  the  native  metals,  which  resulted  in  the 
production  independently  of  bronze ;  by  the  introduction 
of  irrigation  in  the  cultivation  of  maize  and  plants,  and 
by  the  use  of  adobe-brick  and  stone  in  the  construction 
of  great  joint  tenement  houses  in  the  nature  of  fort- 
resses. 

Resuming  the  retrospect  and  entering  the  Older  Period 
of  barbarism,  let  us  next  remove  from  human  acquisi- 
tions the  confederacy,  based  upon  gentes,  phratries  and 
tribes  under  the  government  of  a  council  of  chiefs  which 
gave  a  more  highly  organized  state  of  society  than  be- 
fore that  had  been  known.  Also  the  discovery  and  culti- 
vation of  maize  and  the  bean,  squash  and  tobacco,  in  the 
Western  hemisphere,  together  with  a  knowledge  of  fari- 
naceous food ;  finger  weaving  with  warp  and  woof ;  the 
kilt,  moccasin  and  leggin  of  tanned  deer-skin ;  the  blow- 
gun  for  bird  shooting;  the  village  stockade  for  defense; 
tribal  games  ;  element  worship,  with  a  vague  recognition 
of  the  Great  Spirit ;  cannibalism  in  time  of  war ;  and  last- 
ly, the  art  of  pottery. 

As  we  ascend  in  the  order  of  time  and  of  development, 
but  descend  in  the  scale  of  human  advancement,  inven- 
tions become  more  simple,  and  more  direct  in  their  rela- 

'  The  researches  of  Beckmann  have  loft  a  doubt  upon  the 
existence  of  a  true  bronze  earlier  than  a  knowledge  of  iron 
among  the  Greeks  and  Latins.  He  thinks  "electrum,"  men- 
tioned in  the  "Iliad,"  was  a  mixture  of  gold  and  silver  ("His- 
tory of  Inventions,"  Bohn's  ed.,  ii,  212):  and  that  the  "stannum" 
of  the  Romans,  which  consisted  of  silver  and  lead,  was  the 
same  as  the  "kassiteron"  of  Homer  (lb.,  ii,  217).  This  word 
has  usually  been  interpreted  as  tin.  In  commenting'  upon  the 
compo-sition  called  bronze,  he  remarks:  "In  my  opinion  the 
greater  part  of  these  things  were  made  of  "stannum."  properly 
so  called,  which  by  the  admixture  of  the  noble  motals,  and 
some  difficulty  of  fusion,  was  rendered  fitter  for  use  than  pure 
copper."  (lb.,  ii.  213).  These  observations  were  limited  to  the 
nations  of  the  Mediterranean,  within  whose  areas  tin  was  not 
produced.  Axes,  knives,  razors,  swords,  daggers,  and  personal 
ornaments  discovered  in  Switzerland,  Austria,  Denmark,  and 
other  parts  of  Northern  'Rurope,  have  boon  found,  on  analysis, 
composed  of  copper  and  tin,  and  therefore  fall  under  the  strict 
definition  of  bronze.  They  were  also  found  in  relations  indicat- 
ing priority  to  Iron. 


RATIO  OF  HUMAN  PROGRESS  85 

tions  to  primary  wants;  and  institutions  approach  nearer 
and  nearer  to  .the  elementary  form  of  a  gens  composed 
of  consanguinei,  under  a  chief  of  their  own  election,  and 
to  the  tribe  composed  of  kindred  gentes,  under  the  gov- 
ernment of  a  council  of  chiefs.  The  condition  of  Asiatic 
and  European  tribes  in  this  period,  (for  the  Aryan  and 
Semitic  families  did  not  probably  then  exist),  is  substan- 
tially lost.  It  is  represented  by  the  remains  of  ancient 
art  Ijetween  the  invention  of  pottery  and  the  domestica- 
tion of  animals ;  and  includes  the  people  who  formed  the 
sheH-heaps  on  the  coast  of  the  Baltic,  who  seem  to  have 
domesticated  the  dog,  but  no  other  animals. 

In  any  just  estimate  of  the  magnitude  of  the  achieve- 
ments of  mankind  in  the  three  sub-periods  of  barbarism, 
they  must  be  regarded  as  immense,  not  only  in  number 
and  in  intrinsic  value,  but  also  in  the  mental  and  moral 
development  by  which  they  were  necessarily  accom- 
panied. 

Ascending  next  through  the  prolonged  period  of  sav- 
agery, let  us  strike  out  of  human  knowledge  the  organi- 
zation into  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes ;  the  syndyasmian 
family ;  the  worship  of  the  elements  in  its  lowest  form ; 
syllabical  language ;  the  bow  and  arrow ;  stone  and  bone 
implements ;  cane  and  splint  baskets ;  skin  garments ;  the 
punaluan  family ;  the  organization  upon  the  basis  of  sex ; 
the  village,  consisting  of  clustered  houses ;  boat  craft,  in- 
cluding the  bark  and  dug-out  canoe ;  the  spear  pointed 
with  flint,  and  the  war  club ;  flint  implements  of  the 
ruder  kinds ;  the  consanguine  family ;  monosyllabical 
language ;  fetichism ;  cannibalism ;  a  knowledge  of  the 
use  of  fire ;  and  lastly,  gesture  language.  ^     When  this 

1  The  origin  of  language  has  been  investigated  far  enougli  to 
find  the  grave  difficulties  in  the  way  of  any  solution  of  the 
problem.  It  seems  to  have  been  abandoned,  by  common  consent, 
as  an  unprofitable  subject.  It  is  more  a  question  of  the  laws 
of  human  development  and  of  the  necessary  operations  of  the 
mental  principle,  than  of  the  materials  of  language.  Lucretius 
remarks  that  with  sounds  and  with  gesture,  mankind  in  tli» 
primitive  period  intimated  their  thoughts  stammoringly  to  eac^ 
other  <■— V.  1021).  He  assumes  that  thought  preceded  speech,  ant" 
that  gesture  language  preceded  articulate  language.  Ge.«;tii'^ 
or  sign  language  seems  to  have  been  primitive,  the  elder  si.st": 
of  articulate  speech.    It  is  still  the  universal  language  of  bar- 


80  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

work  of  elimination  has  been  done  in  the  order  in  which 
these  several  acquisitions  were  made,  we  shall  have  ap- 
proached quite  near  the  infantile  period  of  man's  exist- 
ence, when  mankind  were  learning  the  use  of  fire,  which 
rendered  possible  a  fish  subsistence  and  a  change  of  hab- 
itat, and  when  they  were  attempting  the  formation  of 
articulate  language.  In  a  condition  so  absolutely  primi- 
tive, man  is  seen  to  be  not  only  a  child  in  the  scale  of 
humanity,  but  possessed  of  a  brain  into  which  not  a 
thought  or  conception  expressed  by  these  institutions,  in- 
ventions and  discoveries  had  penetrated;  —  in  a  word, 
he  stands  at  the  bottom  of  the  scale,  but  potentially  all 
he  has  since  become. 

With  the  production  of  inventions  and  discoveries,  and 
with  the  growth  of  institutions,  the  human  mind  neces- 
sarily grew  and  expanded ;  and  we  are  led  to  recognize 
a  gradual  enlargement  of  the  brain  itself,  particularly 
of  the  cerebral  portion.  The  slowness  of  this  mental 
growth  was  inevitable,  in  the  period  of  savagery,  from 
the  extreme  difficulty  of  compassing  the  simplest  inven- 
tion out  of  nothing,  or  with  next  to  nothing  to  assist 
mental  eflFort ;  and  of  discovering  any  substance  or  force 

barians,  if  not  of  savages,  in  thveir  mutual  intercOTirse  when 
their  dialects  are  not  the  same.  The  American  aborigines  have 
developed  such  a  language,  thus  showing  that  one  may  be 
formed  adequate  for  general  intercourse.  As  used  by  them  it 
is  both  graceful  and  expressive,  and  affords  pleasure  in  its  use. 
It  is  a  language  of  natural  symbols,  and  therefore  possesses 
the  elements  of  a  universal  language.  A  sign  language  is 
easier  to  invent  tlian  one  of  sounds;  and,  since  it  is  mastered 
with  greater  facility,  a  presumption  arises  that  it  preceded 
articulate  speech.  The  sounds  of  the  voice  would  first  come  in, 
on  this  hypothesis,  in  aid  of  gesture;  and  as  they  gradually 
assumed  a  conventional  signification,  they  would  supersede,  to 
that  extent,  the  language  of  signs,  or  become  incorporated  in 
It.  It  would  also  tend  to  develop  the  capacity  of  the  vocal 
organs.  No  proposition  can  be  plainer  than  that  gesture  has 
attended  articulate  language  from  its  birth.  It  Is  still  insepar- 
able from  it;  and  may  embody  the  remains,  by  survival,  of  an 
ancient  mental  habit.  If  language  were  perfect,  a  gesture  to 
lengthen  out  or  emphasize  its  moaning  would  be  a  fault.  As 
we  descend  through  the  gradations  of  language  Into  its  ruder 
forms,  the  gesture  element  increases  In  the  quantity  and 
variety  of  its  forms  until  we  find  languages  so  dependent  upon 
gestures  that  without  them  they  would  he  substantially  un- 
intelligible. Growing  up  and  flourishing  side  by  side  through 
savagery,  and  far  into  the  period  of  barbarism,  they  remain, 
in  modified  forms,  indissolubly  united.  Those  who  are  curious 
to  solve  the  problem  of  the  origin  of  language  would  do  well 
to  look  to  the  possible  suggestions  from  gesture  language. 


RATIO  OF  HUMAX  PROGRESS  ^ 

in  nature  available  in  such  a  rude  condition  of  life.  It 
was  not  less  difficult  to  organize  the  simplest  form  of 
society  out  of  such  savage  and  intractable  materials.  The 
first  inventions  and  the  first  social  organizations  were 
doubtless  the  hardest  to  achieve,  and  were  consequently 
separated  from  each  other  by  the  longest  intervals  of 
time.  A  striking  illustration  is  found  in  the  successive 
forms  of  the  family.  In  this  law  of  progress,  which 
works  in  a  geometrical  ratio,  a  sufficient  explanation  is 
found  of  the  prolonged  duration  of  the  period  of  sav- 
agery. 

That  the  early  condition  of  mankind  was  substantially 
as  above  indicated  is  not  exclusively  a  recent,  nor  even 
a  modern  opinion.  Some  of  the  ancient  poets  and  phi- 
losophers recognized  the  fact,  that  mankind  commenced 
in  a  state  of  extreme  rudeness  from  which  they  had  risen 
bv  slow  and  successive  steps.  They  also  perceived  that 
the  course  of  their  development  was  registered  by  a  pro- 
gressive* series  of  inventions  and  discoveries,  but  without 
noticing  as  fully  the  more  conclusive  argument  from 
social  institutions. 

The  important  question  of  the  ratio  of  this  progress, 
which  has  a  direct  bearing  upon  the  relative  length  of 
the  several  ethnical  periods,  now  presents  itself.  Human 
progress,  from  first  to  last,  has  been  in  a  ratio  not  rig- 
orously but  essentially  geometrical.  This  is  plain  on  the 
face  of  the  facts ;  and  it  could  not,  theoretically,  have 
occurred  in  any  other  way.  Ever}-  item  of  absolute 
knowledge  gained  became  a  factor  in  further  acquisi- 
tions, until  the  present  complexity  of  knowledge  was 
attained.  Consequently,  while  progress  was  slowest  in 
time  in  the  first  period,  and  most  rapid  in  the  last,  the 
relative  amount  may  have  been  greatest  in  the  first,  when 
the  achievements  of  either  period  are  considered  in  their 
relations  to  the  sum.  It  may  be  suggested,  as  not  im- 
probable of  ultimate  recognition,  that  the  progress  of 
mankind  in  the  period  of  savagery,  in  its  relations  to  the 
sum  of  human  progress,  was  greater  in  degree  than  it 
was  afterwards  in  the  three  sub-periods  of  barbarism ; 
and  that  the  progress  made  in  the  whole  period  of  bar- 


88  ANCTEKT   cOC'TUTT 

barism  was,  in  like  manner,  greater  in  degree  than  it  has 
been  since  in  the  entire  period  of  civihzation. 

What  may  have  been  the  relative  length  of  these  eth- 
nical periods  is  also  a  fair  subject  of  speculation.  An 
exact  measure  is  not  attainable,  but  an  approximation 
may  be  attempted,  *  On  the  theory  of  geometrical  pro- 
gression, the  period  of  savagery  was  necessarily  longer 
in  duration  than  the  period  of  barbarism,  as  the  latter  was 
longer  than  the  period  of  civilization.  If  we  assume  a 
hundred  thousand  years  as  the  measure  of  man's  exist- 
ence upon  the  earth  in  order  to  find  the  relative  length  of 
each  period, — and  for  this  purpose,  it  may  have  been 
longer  or  shorter, — it  will  be  seen  at  once  that  at  least 
sixty  thousand  years  must  be  assigned  to  the  period  of 
savagery.  Three-fifths  of  the  life  of  the  most  advanced 
portion  of  the  human  race,  on  this  apportionment,  were 
spent  in  savagery.  Of  the  remaining  years,  twenty  thou- 
sand, or  one-fifth,  should  be  assigned  to  the  Older  Pe- 
riod of  barbarism.  For  the  Middle  and  Later  Periods 
there  remain  fifteen  thousand  years,  leaving  five  thou- 
sand, more  or  less,  for  the  period  of  civilization. 

The  relative  length  of  the  period  of  savagery  is  more 
likely  under  than  over  stated.  Without  discussing  the 
principles  on  which  this  apportionment  is  made,  it  may 
be  remarked  that  in  addition  to  the  argument  from  the 
geometrical  progression  under  which  human  develop- 
ment of  necessity  has  occurred,  a  graduated  scale  of 
progress  has  been  imiversally  observed  in  remains  of  an- 
cient art,  and  this  will  be  found  equally  true  of  institu- 
tions. It  is  a  conclusion  of  deep  importance  in  ethnology 
that  the  experience  of  mankind  in  savagery  was  longer 
in  duration  than  all  their  subsequent  experience,  and 
that  the  period  of  civilization  covers  but  a  fragment  of 
the  life  of  the  race. 

Two  families  of  mankind,  the  Aryan  and  Semitic,  by 
the  commingling  of  diverse  stocks,  superiority  of  sub- 
sistence or  advantage  of  position,  and  ])ossibly  from  all 
together,  were  the  first  to  emerge  from  barbarism.  They 
were    substantially    the    founders    of   civilization.  ^     But 

The    Ef?yptian.s   are   supposed   to   afflliate   remotely    with   the 
Semitic  family. 


RATIO  OF  HUMAN  PROGRESS  89 

their  existence  as  distinct  families  was  undoubtedly,  in  a 
comparative  sense,  a  late  event.  Their  progenitors  are 
lost  in  the  undistinguishable  mass  of  earlier  barbarians. 
The  first  ascertained  appearance  of  the  Aryan  family  was 
in  connection  with  the  domestic  animals,  at  which  time 
they  were  one  people  in  language  and  nationality.  It  is 
not  probable  that  the  Aryan  or  Semitic  families  were 
developed  into  individuality  earlier  than  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Middle  Period  of  barbarism,  and  that  their 
differentiation  from  the  mass  of  barbarians  occurred 
through  their  acquisition  of  the  domestic  animals. 

The  most  advanced  portion  of  the  human  race  were 
halted,  so  to  express  it,  at  certain  stages  of  progress, 
until  some  great  invention  or  discovery,  such  as  the 
domestication  of  animals  or  the  smelting  pf  iron  ore, 
gave  a  new  and  powerful  impulse  forward.  '  While  thus 
restrained,  the  ruder  tribes,  continually  advancing,  ap- 
proached in  different  degrees  of  nearness  to  the  same 
status ;  for  wherever  a  continental  connection  existed,  all 
the  tribes  must  have  shared  in  some  measure  in  each 
other's  progress.  x\ll  great  inventions  and  discoveries 
propagate  themselves;  but  the  inferior  tribes  must  have 
appreciated  their  value  before  they  could  appropriate 
them.  In  the  continental  areas  certain  tribes  would 
lead;  but  the  leadership  would  be  apt  to  shift  a  number 
of  times  in  the  course  of  an  ethnical  period.  The  de- 
struction of  the  ethnic  bond  and  life  of  particular  tribes, 
followed  by  their  decadence,  must  have  arrested  for  a 
time,  in  many  instances  and  in  all  periods,  the  upward 
flow  of  human  progress.  From  the  Middle  Period  of 
barbarism,  however,  the  Aryan  and  Semitic  families  seem 
fairly  to  represent  the  central  threads  of  this  progress, 
which  in  the  period  of  civilization  has  been  gradually 
assumed  by  the  Aryan  family  alone. 

The  truth  of  this  general  position  may  be  illustrated  by 
the  condition  of  the  American  aborigines  at  the  epoch 
of  their  discovery.  They  commenced  their  career  on  the 
American  continent  in  savagery;  and,  although  pos- 
sessed of  inferior  mental  endowments,  the  body  of  them 
had  emerged  from  savagery  and  attained  to  the  Lower 


40  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

Status  of  barbarism;  whilst  a  portion  of  them,  the  Vil- 
lage Indians  of  North  and  South  America,  had  risen  to 
the  Middle  Status.  They  had  domesticated  the  llama, 
the  only  quadruped  native  to  the  continent  which  prom- 
ised usefulness  in  the  domesticated  state,  and  had  pro- 
duced bronze  by  alloying  copper  with  tin.  They,  needed 
but  one  invention,  and  that  the  greatest,  the  art  of 
smelting  iron  ore,  to  advance  themselves  into  the  Upper 
Status.  Considering  the  absence  of  all  connection  with 
the  most  advanced  portion  of  the  human  family  in  the 
Eastern  hemisphere,  their  progress  in  unaided  self-devel- 
opment from  the  savage  state  must  be  accounted  remark- 
able. While  the  Asiatic  and  European  were  waiting 
patiently  for  the  boon  of  iron  tools,  the  American  Indian 
was  drawing  near  to  the  possession  of  bronze,  which 
stands  next  to  iron  in  the  order  of  time.  During  this 
period  of  arrested  progress  in  the  Eastern  hemisphere, 
the  American  aborigines  advanced  themselves,  not  to  the 
status  in  which  they  were  found,  but  sufficiently  near 
to  reach  it  while  the  former  were  passing  through  the 
last  period  of  barbarism,  and  the  first  four  thousand 
years  of  civilization.  It  gives  us  a  measure  of  the  length 
of  time  they  had  fallen  behind  the  Aryan  family  in  the 
race  of  progress :  namely  the  duration  of  the  Later  Pe- 
riod of  barbarism,  to  which  the  years  of  civilization 
must  be  added.  The  Aryan  and  Ganowanian  families 
together  exemplify  the  entire  experience  of  man  in  five 
ethnical  periods,  with  the  exception  of  the  first  portion 
of  the  Later  Period  of  savagery. 

Savagery  was  the  formative  period  of  the  human  race. 
Commencing  at  zero  in  knowledge  and  experience,  with- 
out fire,  without  articulate  speech  and  without  arts,  our 
savage  progenitors  fought  the  great  battle,  first  for  ex- 
istence, and  then  for  progress,  until  they  secured  safety 
from  the  ferocious  animals,  and  permanent  subsistence. 
Out  of  these  efforts  there  came  gradually  a  developed 
speech,  and  the  occupation  of  the  entire  surface  of  the 
earth.  But  society  from  its  rudeness  was  still  incapable 
of  organization  in  numbers.  When  the  most  advanced 
portion  of  mankind  had  emerged    from    savagery,    and 


Ratio  of  human  progress  41 

entered  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  the  entire  popu- 
lation of  the  earth  must  have  been  small  in  numbers. 
The  earliest  inventions  were  the  most  difficult  to  accom- 
plish because  of  the  feebleness  of  the  power  of  abstract 
reasoning.  Each  substantial  item  of  knowledge  gained 
would  form  a  basis  for  further  advancement ;  but  this 
must  have  been  nearly  imperceptible  for  ages  upon  ages, 
the  obstacles  to  progress  nearly  balancing  the  energies 
arrayed  against  them.  The  achievements  of  savagery 
are  not  particularly  remarkable  in  character,  but  they 
represent  an  amazing  amount  of  persistent  labor  with 
feeble  means  continued  through  long  periods  of  time  be- 
fore reaching  a  fair  degree  of  completeness.  The  bow 
and  arrow  afford  an  illustration. 

The  inferiority  of  savage  man  in  the  mental  and  moral 
scale,  undeveloped,  inexperienced,  and  held  down  by  his 
low  animal  appetites  and  passions,  though  reluctantly 
recognized,  is,  nevertheless,  substantially  demonstrated 
by  the  remains  of  ancient  art  in  flint  stone  and  bone  im- 
plements, by  his  cave  life  in  certain  areas,  and  by  his 
osteological  remains.  It  is  still  further  illustrated  by 
the  present  condition  of  tribes  of  savages  in  a  low  state 
of  development,  left  in  isolated  sections  of  the  earth  as 
monuments  of  the  past.  And  yet  to  this  great  period  of 
savagery  belongs  the  formation  of  articulate  language 
and  its  advancement  to  the  syllabical  stage,  the  establish- 
ment of  two  forms  of  the  family,  and  possibly  a  third, 
and  the  organization  into  gentes  which  gave  the  first 
form  of  society  worthy  of  the  name.  All  these  conclu- 
sions are  involved  in  the  proposition,  stated  at  the  out- 
set, that  mankind  commenced  their  career  at  the  bottom 
of  the  scale ;  which  "modern  science  claims  to  be  prov- 
ing by  the  most  careful  and  exhaustive  study  of  man 
and  his  works."  ^ 

In  'like  manner,  the  great  period  of  barbarism  was 
signalized  by  four  events  of  pre-emitient  importance : 
namely,  the  domestication  of  animals,  the  discovery  of 
the  cereals,  the  use  of  stone  in  architecture,  and  the  in- 

1  Whitney's  "Oriental  and  Linguistic  Studies,"  p.  341. 


it  ANCIENT  SOCIET-? 

vention  of  the  process  of  smelting  iron  ore.  Commen- 
cing probably  with  the  dog  as  a  companion  in  the  hunt, 
followed  at  a  later  period  by  the  capture  of  the  young 
of  other  animals  and  rearing  them,  not  unlikely,  from 
the  merest  freak  of  fancy,  it  required  time  and  experi- 
ence to  discover  the  utility  of  each,  to  find  means  of  rais- 
ing them  in  numbers  and  to  learn  the  forbearance  ne- 
cessary to  spare  them  in  the  face  of  hunger.  Could  the 
special  history  of  the  domestication  of  each  animal  be 
known,  it  would  exhibit  a  series  of  marvelous  facts.  The 
experiment  carried,  locked  up  in  its  doubtful  chances, 
much  of  the  subsequent  destiny  of  mankind.  Secondly, 
the  acquisition  of  farinaceous  food  by  cultivation  must 
be  regarded  as  one  of  the  greatest  events  in  human 
experience.  It  was  less  essential  in  the  Eastern  hemi- 
sphere, after  the  domestication  of  animals,  than  in  the 
Western,  where  it  became  the  instrument  of  advancing 
a  large  portion  of  the  American  aborigines  into  the 
Lower,  and  another  portion  into  the  Middle  Status  of 
barbarism.  If  mankind  had  never  advanced  beyond  this 
last  condition,  they  had  the  means  of  a  comparatively 
easy  and  enjoyable  life.  Thirdly,  with  the  use  of  adobe- 
brick  and  of  stone  in  house  building,  an  improved  mode 
of  life  was  introduced,  eminently  calculated  to  stimulate 
the  mental  capacities,  and  to  create  the  habit  of  industry, 
— the  fertile  source  of  improvements.  But,  in  its  rela- 
tions to  the  high  career  of  mankind,  the  fourth  inven- 
tion must  be  held  the  greatest  event  in  human  experi- 
ence, preparatory  to  civilization.  When  the  barbarian, 
advancing  step  by  step,  had  discovered  the  native  metals, 
and  learned  to  melt  them  in  the  crucible  and  to  cast  them 
in  moulds ;  when  he  had  alloyed  native  copper  with  tin 
and  produced  bronze ;  and,  finally,  when  by  a  still  greater 
efifort  of  thought  he  had  invented  the  furnace,  and  pro- 
duced iron  from  the  ore,  nine-tenths  of  the  battle  for 
civilization    was,  gained.  ^     Furnished    with    iron    tools, 

I  M.  Quiquerez,  a  Swiss  engineer,  discovered  in  the  canton  of 
Berne  the  remains  of  a  number  of  side-liiU  furnaces  for  smelt- 
ing Iron  ore;  together  with  tools,  fragments  of  iron  and 
charcoal.  To  construct  one,  an  excavation  was  made  In  the 
side  of  a  hill  in  which  a  bosh    was    formed  of    clay,    wltji  a 


RATIO  OF  HUMAN  PROGRESS  43 

capable  of  holding  both  an  edge  and  a  point,  mankind 
were  certain  of  attaining  to  civilization.  The  produc- 
tion of  iron  was  the  event  of  events  in  human  experi- 
ence, without  a  parallel,  and  without  an  equal,  beside 
which  all  other  inventions  and  discoveries  were  incon- 
siderable, or  at  least  subordinate.  Out  of  it  came  the 
metallic  hammer  and  anvil,  the  axe  and  the  chisel,  the 
plow  with  an  iron  point,  the  iron  sword ;  in  fine,  the 
basis  of  civilization,  which  may  be  said  to  rest  upon  this 
metal.  The  want  of  iron  tools  arrested  the  progress  of 
mankind  in  barbarism.  There  they  would  have  remained 
to  the  present  hour,  had  they  failed  to.  bridge  the  chasm. 
It  seems  probable  that  the  conception  and  the  process  of 
smelting  iron  ore  came  but  once  to  man.  It  w^ould  be  a 
singular  satisfaction  could  it  be  known  to  what  tribe  and 
family  we  are  indebted  for  this  knowledge,  and  with  it 
for  civilization.  The  Semitic  family  were  then  in  ad- 
vance of  the  Aryan,  and  in  the  lead  of  the  human  race. 
They  gave  the  phonetic  alphabet  to  mankind  and  it  seems 
not  unlikely  the  knowledge  of  iron  as  well. 

At  the  epoch  of  the  Homeric  poems,  the  Grecian  tribes 
had  made  immense  material  progress.  All  the  common 
metals  w^ere  known,  including  the  process  of  smelting 
ores,  and  possibly  of  changing  iron  into  steel ;  the  prin- 
cipal cereals  had  been  discovered,  together  with  the  art 
of  cultivation,  and  the  use  of  the  plow  in  field  agricul- 
ture ;  the  dog,  the  horse,  the  ass,  the  cow,  the  sow,  the 
sheep  and  the  goat  had  been  domesticated  and  reared  in 
flocks  and  herds,  as  has  been  shown.  Architecture  had 
produced  a  house  constructed  of  durable  materials,  con- 
taining separate  apartments,^  and  consisting  of  more 
than  a  single    story ;  ^    ship  building,    weapons,    textile 

chimney  In  the  form  of  a  dome  above  it  to  create  a  draft.  No 
evidence  was  found  of  tli.e  use  of  the  bellows.  The  boshes  seem 
to  have  been  charged  witli  alternate  layers  of  pulverized  ore 
and  charcoal,  combustion  being  sustained  by  fanning  the 
flames.  The  result  was  a  spongy  mass  of  partly  fused  ore 
which  was  afterwards  welded  into  a  compact  mass  by  ham- 
mering. A  deposit  of  charcoal  was  found  beneath  a  bed  of  peat 
twenty  feet  in  thickness.  It  is  not  probable  that  these  furnaces 
were  coeval  with  the  knowledge  of  smelting  iron  ore;  but  they 
were,  not  unlikely,  close  copies  of  the  original  furnace.— Vide 
Figuler's    "Primitive    Man,"    Putnam's    ed.,    p.    301, 

»  Palace   of   Priam.— II..    vi,    242. 

»    House   of   Ulysses.— Od..    xvi,    448. 


44  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

fabrics,  the  manufacture  of  wine  from  the  grape,  the 
cultivation  of  the  apple,  the  pear,  the  olive  and  the  fig/ 
together  with  comfortable  apparel,  and  useful  imple- 
ments and  utensils,  had  been  produced  and  brought  into 
human  use.  But  the  early  history  of  mankind  was  lost 
in  the  oblivion  of  the  ages  that  had  passed  away.  Tradi- 
tion ascended  to  an  anterior  barbarism  through  which  it 
was  unable  to  penetrate.  Language  had  attained  such 
development  that  poetry  of  the  highest  structural  form 
was  about  to  embody  the  inspirations  of  genius.  The 
closing  period  of  barbarism  brought  this  portion  of  the 
human  family  to  the  threshold  of  civilization,  animated 
by  the  great  attainments  of  the  past,  grown  hardy  and 
intelligent  in  the  school  of  experience,  and  with  the  un- 
disciplined imagination  in  the  full  splendor  of  its  cre- 
ative powers.  Barbarism  ends  with  the  production  of 
grand  barbarians.  Whilst  the  condition  of  society  in 
this  period  was  understood  by  the  later  Greek  and  Ro- 
man writers,  the  anterior  state,  with  its  distinctive  cul- 
ture and  experience,  was  as  deeply  concealed  from  their 
apprehension  as  from  our  own ;  except  as  occupying  a 
nearer  stand-point  in  time,  they  saw  more  distinctly  the 
relations  of  the  present  with  the  past.  It  was  evident 
to  them  that  a  certain  sequence  existed  in  the  series  of 
inventions  and  discoveries,  as  well  as  a  certain  order  of 
development  of  institutions,  through  which  mankind  had 
advanced  themselves  from  the  status  of  savagery  to  that 
of  the  Homeric  age;  but  the  immense  interval  of  time 
between  the  two  conditions  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
made  a  subject  even  of  speculative  consideration. 

I    Od.,   vll,   115. 


■,r:^)y 


PART   II. 

JROWTH  OF  THE  IDEA  OF  GOVERNMENT 


CHAPTER  I 

ORGANIZATION  OF  SOCIETY  UPON  THE  BASIS  OF  SEX 

In  treating  the  subject  of  the  growth  of  the  idea  of 
government,  the  organization  into  gentes  on  the  basis 
of  kin  naturally  suggests  itself  as  the  archaic  frame- 
work of  ancient  society ;  but  there  is  a  still  older  and 
more  archaic  organization,  that  into  classes  on  the  basis 
of  sex,  which  first  demands  attention.  It  will  not  be 
taken  up  because  of  its  novelty  in  human  experience,  but 
for  the  higher  reason  that  it  seems  to  contain  the  germ- 
inal principle  of  the  gens.  If  this  inference  is  warranted 
by  the  facts  it  will  give  to  this  organization  into  male 
and  female  classes,  now  found  in  full  vitality  among  the 
Australian  aborigines,  an  ancient  prevalence  as  wide 
spread,  in  the  tribes  of  mankind,  as  the  original  organi- 
zation into  gentes. 

It  will  soon  be  perceived  that  low  down  in  savagery 
community  of  husbands  and  wives,  within  prescribed 
limits,  was  the  central  principle  of  the  social  system. 
The  marital  rights  and  privileges,  (jura  conjugialia,)  ^ 
established  in  the  group,  grew  into  a  stupendous  scheme, 
which  became  the  organic  principle  on  which  society  was 
constituted.  From  the  nature  of  the  case  these  rights 
and  privileges  rooted  themselves  so  firmly  that  emanci- 
pation from  them  was  slowly  accomplished  through 
movements  which  resulted  in  unconscious  reformations. 
Accordingly  it  will  be    found    that    the  family  has  ad- 

•  The  Romans  made  a  distinction  between  "connubium," 
whichi  related  to  marriage  considered  as  a  civil  Institution, 
and   "conjugium,"  which  was   a  mere  physical  union, 

47 


48  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

vanced  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  form  as  the  range  of 
this  conjugal  system  was  gradually  reduced.  The  fam- 
ily, commencing  in  the  consanguine,  founded  upon  the 
intermarriage  of  brothers  and  sisters  in  a  group,  passed 
into  the  second  form,  the  punaluan,  under  a  social  system 
akin  to  the  Australian  classes,  which  broke  up  the  first 
species  of  marriage  by  substituting  groups  of  brothers 
who  shared  their  wives  in  common,  and  groups  of  sis- 
ters who  shared  their  husbands  in  common, — marriage  in 
both  cases  being  in  the  group.  The  organization  into 
classes  upon  sex,  and  the  subsequent  higher  organization 
into  gentes  upon  kin,  must  be  regarded  as  the  results 
of  great  social  movements  worked  out  unconsciously 
through  natural  selection.  For  these  reasons  the  Aus- 
tralian system,  about  to  be  presented,  deserves  attentive 
consideration,  although  it  carries  us  into  a  low  grade  of 
human  life.  It  represents  a  striking  phase  of  the  ancient 
social  history  of  our  race. 

The  organization  into  classes  on  the  basis  of  sex,  and 
the  inchoate  organization  into  gentes  on  the  basis  of  kin, 
now  prevail  among  that  portion  of  the  Australian  abo- 
rigines who  speak  the  Kamilaroi  language.  They  in- 
habit the  Darling  River  district  north  of  Sydney.  Both 
organizations  are  also  found  in  other  Australian  tribes, 
and  so  wide  spread  as  to  render  probable  their  ancient 
universal  prevalence  among  them.  It  is  evident  from 
internal  considerations  that  the  male  and  female  classes 
are  older  than  the  gentes:  firstly,  because  the  gentile 
organization  is  higher  than  that  into  classes;  and  sec- 
ondly, because  the  former,  among  the  Kamilaroi,  are  in 
process  of  overthrowing  the  latter.  The  class  in  its  male 
and  female  branches  is  the  unit  of  their  social  system, 
which  place  rightfully  belongs  to  the  gens  when  in  full 
development.  A  remarkable  combination  of  facts  is  thus 
presented ;  namely,  a  sexual  and  a  gentile  organization, 
both  in  existence  at  the  same  time,  the  former  holding 
the  central  position,  and  the  latter  inchoate  but  advancing 
to  completeness  through  encroachments  upon  the  former. 

This  organization  upon  sex  has  not  been  found,  as  yet, 
in  any  tribes  of  savages  out  of  Australia,  but  the  slow 


ORGANIZATION  OF   SOCIETY  ON  BASIS  OF   SEX  49 

development  of  these  islanders  in  their  secluded  habitat, 
and  the  more  archaic  character  of  the  organization  upon 
sex  than  that  into  gentes,  suggests  the  conjecture,  that 
the  former  may  have  been  universal  in  such  branches  of 
the  human  family  as  afterwards  possessed  the  gentile 
organization.  Although  the  class  system,  when  traced 
out  fully,  involves  some  bewildering  complications,  it 
will  reward  the  attention  necessary  for  its  mastery.  As 
a  curious  social  organization  among  savages  it  possesses 
but  little  interest ;  but  as  the  most  .primitive  form  of  so- 
ciety hitherto  discovered,  and  more  especially  with  the 
contingent  probability  that  the  remote  progenitors  of  our 
own  Aryan  family  were  once  similarly  organized,  it  be- 
comes important,  and  may  prove  instructive. 

The  Australians  rank  below  the  Polynesians,  and  far 
below  the  American  aborigines.  They  stand  below  the 
African  negro  and  near  the  bottom  of  the  scale.  Their 
social  institutions,  therefore,  must  approach  the  primi- 
tive type  as  nearly  as  those  of  any  existing  people.  ^ 

Inasmuch  as  the  gens  is  made  the  subject  of  the 
succeeding  chapter,  it  will  be  introduced  in  this  without 
discussion,  and  only  for  the  necessary  explanation  of  the 
classes. 

The  Kamilaroi  are  divided  into  six  gentes,  standing 
with  reference  to  the  right  of  marriage,  in  two  divisions, 
as  follows : 

I.  I.     Iguana,    (Duli).      2.  Kangaroo,    (Murriira). 
3.  Opossum,  (Mute). 

II.  4.  Emu,  (Dinoun).  5.  Bandicoot,  (Bilba.  6. 
Black  snake,  ( Nurai ) . 

Originally  the  first  three  gentes  were  not  allowed  to 

I  For  the  detailed  facts  of  the  Australian  system  I  am  Indebt- 
ed to  the  Rev.  Lorimer  Fison,  an  English  missionary  In 
Australia,  wlio  received  a  portion  of  them  from  the  Rev.  W. 
Ridley,  and  another  portion  from  T.  E.  Lance,  Esq.,  both  of 
whom  had  spent  many  years  among  the  Australian  aborigines, 
and  enjoyed  excellent  opportunities  for  observation.  The  facta 
were  sent  by  Mr.  Fison  with  a  critical  analysis  and  discussion 
of  the  system,  wliieh,  with  observations  of  the  writer,  were 
published  in  the  "Proceedings  of  the  Am.  Acad,  of  Arts  and 
Sciences  for  1S72."  See  vol.  viii.  p.  412.  A  brief  notice  of  th« 
Kamilaroi  classes  is  given  in  McLennan's  "Primitive  Marriage," 
p.  118;  and  in  Tylor's  "Early  History  of  Mankind,"  p.  288, 
»  Padymelon:  a  species  of  kangaroo. 


60  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

intermarry  with  each  other,  because  they  were  subdi- 
visions of  an  original  gens ;  but  they  were  permitted  to 
marry  into  either  of  the  other  gentes,  and  rice  versa. 
This  ancient  rule  is  now  modified,  among  the  Kamilaroi, 
in  certain  definite  particulars  but  not  carried  to  the  full 
extent  of  permitting  marriage  into  any  gens  but  that 
of  the  individual.  Neither  males  nor  females  can  marry 
into  their  own  gens,  the  prohibition  being  absolute. 
Descent  is  in  the  female  line,  which  assigns  the  children 
to  the  gens  of  their  mother.  These  are  among  the  es- 
sential characteristics  of  the  gens,  wherever  this  insti- 
tution is  found  in  its  archaic  form.  In  its  external  fea- 
tures, therefore,  it  is  perfect  and  complete  among  the 
Kamilaroi. 

But  there  is  a  further  and  older  division  of  the  people 
into  eight  classes,  four  of  which  are  composed  exclu- 
sively of  males,  and  four  exclusively  of  females.  It  is 
accompanied  with  a  regulation  in  respect  to  marriage 
and  descent  which  obstructs  the  gens,  and  demonstrates 
that  the  latter  organization  is  in  process  of  development 
into  its  true  logical  form.  One  only  of  the  four  classes 
of  males  can  marry  into  one  only  of  the  four  classes  of 
females.  In  the  sequel  it  will  be  found  that  all  the  males 
of  one  class  are,  theoretically,  the  husbands  of  all  the 
females  of  the  class  into  which  they  are  allowed  to 
marry.  Moreover,  if  the  male  belongs  to  one  of  the  first 
three  gentes  the  female  must  belong  to  one  of  the  op- 
posite three.  Marriage  is  thus  restricted  to  a  portion 
of  the  males  of  one  gens,  with  a  portion  of  the  females 
of  another  gens,  which  is  opposed  to  the  true  theory  of 
the  gentile  institution,  for  all  the  members  of  each  gens 
should  be  allowed  to  marry  persons  of  the  opposite  sex 
in  all  the  gentes  except  their  own. 

The  classes  are  the  following : 

Male.  Female. 

1.  Ippai.  I.     Ippata. 

2.  Kumbo.  2.     Buta. 

3.  Murri.  3.     Mata. 

4.  Kubbi.  4-     Kapota. 

All  the  Ippais,  of  whatever  gens,  are  brothers  to  each 


ORGANIZATION  OF  SOCIETY  ON  BASIS  OF  SEX         61 

Other.  Theoretically,  they  are  descended  from  a  sup- 
posed common  female  ancestor.  All  the  Kumbos  are  the 
same ;  and  so  are  all  the  Murris  and  Kubbis,  respectively, 
and  for  the  same  reason.  In  like  manner,  all  the  Ippatas, 
of  whatever  gens,  are  sisters  to  each  other,  and  for  the 
same  reason;  all  the  Butas  are  the  same,  and  so  are  all 
the  Matas  and  Kapotas,  respectively.  In  the  next  place, 
all  the  Ippais  and  Ippatas  are  brothers  and  sisters  to  each 
other,  whether  children  of  the  same  mother  or  collateral 
consanguinei,  and  in  whatever  gens  they  are  found.  The 
Kumbos  and  Butas  are  brothers  and  sisters:  and  so  are 
the  Murris  and  Matas,  and  the  Kubbis  and  Kapotas  re- 
spectively. If  an  Ippai  and  Ippata  meet,  who  have  never 
seen  each  other  before,  they  address  each  other  as  bro- 
ther and  sister.  The  Kamilaroi,  therefore,  are  organized 
into  four  great  primary  groups  of  brothers  and  sisters, 
each  group  being  composed  of  a  male  and  a  female 
branch ;  but  intermingled  over  the  areas  of  their  occupa- 
tion. Founded  upon  sex,  instead  of  kin,  it  is  older  than 
the  gentes,  and  more  archaic,  it  may  be  repeated,  than 
any  form  of  society  hitherto  known. 

The  classes  embody  the  germ  of  the  gens,  but  fall  short 
of  its  realization.  In  reality  the  Ippais  and  Ippatas  form 
a  single  class  in  two  branches,  and  since  they  cannot  in- 
termarry they  would  form  the  basis  of  a  gens  but  for  the 
reason  that  they  fall  under  two  names,  each  of  which  is 
integral  for  certain  purposes,  and  for  the  further  reason 
that  their  children  take  diflferent  names  from  their  own. 
The  division  into  classes  is  upon  sex  instead  of  kin,  and 
has  its  primary  relation  to  a  rule'  of  marriage  as  remark- 
able as  it  is  original. 

Since  brothers  and  sisters  are  not  allowed  to  inter- 
marry, the  classes  stand  to  each  other  in  a  different  order 
with  respect  to  the  right  of  marriage,  or  rather,  of  co- 
habitation, which  better  expresses  the  relation.  Such 
was  the  original  law,  thus : 

Ippai  can  marry  Kapota,  and  no  other. 

Kumbo  can  marry  Mata,  and  no  other. 

Murri  can  marry  Buta,  and  no  other. 

Kubbi  can  marry  Ippata,  and  no  other. 


62  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

This  exclusive  scheme  has  been  modified  in  one  particu- 
lar, as  will  hereafter  be  shown :  namely,  in  giving  to  each 
class  of  males  the  right  of  intermarriage  with  one  addi- 
tional class  of  females.  In  this  fact,  evidence  of  the 
encroachment  of  the  gens  upon  the  class  is  furnished, 
tending  to  the  overthrow  of  the  latter. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  each  male  in  the  selection  of  a  wife, 
is  limited  to  one-fourth  part  of  all  the  Kamilaroi  females. 
This,  however,  is  not  the  remarkable  part  of  the  system. 
Theoretically  every  Kapota  is  the  wife  of  every  Ippai ; 
every  Mata  is  the  w'ife  of  every  Kumbo ;  every  Buta  is 
the  wife  of  every  Murri;  and  every  Ippata  of  every 
Kubbi.  Upon  this  material  point  the  information  is  spe- 
cific. Mr.  Fison,  before  mentioned,  after  observing  that 
Mr.  Lance  had  "had  much  intercourse  with  the  natives, 
having  lived  among  them  many  years  on  frontier  cattle- 
stations  on  the  Darling  River,  and  in  the  trans-Darling 
country,"  quotes  from  his  letter  as  follows :  "If  a  Kubbi 
meets  a  stranger  Ippata,  they  address  each  other  as 
Golecr  =  Spouse.  ...  A  Kubbi  thus  meeting  an  Ippata, 
even  though  she  were  of  another  tribe,  would  treat  her 
as  his  wife,  and  his  right  to  do  so  would  be  recognized 
by  her  tribe."  Every  Ippata  within  the  immediate  circle 
of  his  acquaintance  would  consequently  be  his  wife  as 
well. 

Here  we  find,  in  a  direct  and  definite  form,  punaluan 
marriage  in  a  group  of  unusual  extent ;  but  broken  up 
into  lesser  groups,  each  a  miniature  representation  of  the 
whole,  united  for  habitation  and  subsistence.  Under  the 
conjugal  system  thus  brought  to  light  one-quarter  of  all 
the  males  are  united  in  marriage  with  one-quarter  of  all 
the  females  of  the  Kamilaroi  tribes.  This  picture  of 
savage  life  need  not  revolt  the  mind,  because  to  them  it 
was  a  form  of  the  marriage  relation,  and  therefore  devoid 
of  im])ropricty.  It  is  but  an  extended  form  of  polygyny 
and  polyandry,  which,  within  narrower  limits,  have  pre- 
vailed universally  among  savage  tribes.  The  evidence  of 
the  fact  still  exists,  in  unmistakable  form,  in  their  sys- 
tems of  consanguinity  and  affinity,  which  have  outlived 
the  customs  and  usages    in  which  they  originated.     It 


ORGANIZATION  OF   SOCIETY   ON  BASIS   OF   SEX         58 

will  be  noticed  that  this  scheme  of  intermarriage  is  but 
a  step  from  promiscuity,  because  it  is  tantamount  to  that 
with  the  addition  of  a  method.  Still,  as  it  is  made  a  sub- 
ject of  organic  regulation,  it  is  far  removed  from  general 
promiscuity.  Moreover,  it  reveals  an  existing  state  of 
marriage  and  of  the  family  of  which  no  adequate  con- 
ception could  have  been  formed  apart  from  the'  facts.  It 
affords  the  first  direct  evidence  of  a  state  of  society  which 
had  previously  been  deduced,  as  extremely  probable, 
from  systems  of  consanguinity  and  affinity.^ 

Whilst  the  children  remained  in  the  gens  of  their 
mother,  they  passed  into  another  class,  in  the  same  gens, 
different  from  that  of  either  parent.  This  will  be  made 
apparent  by  the  following  table : 

Male.  Female.  Male.        Female. 

Ippai  marries  Kapota.  Their  children  are  Murri  and  Mata. 
Kumbo  marries  Mata.  Their  children  are  Kubbi  and  Kapota. 
Murri  marries  Buta.  Their  children  are  Ippai  and  Ippata. 
Kubbi  marries  Ippata.    Their  children  are  Kumbo  and  Buta. 

If  these  descents  are  followed  out  it  will  be  found  that, 
in  the  female  line,  Kapota  is  the  mother  of  Mata,  and 
Mata  in  turn  is  the  mother  of  Kapota ;  so  Ippata  is  the 
mother  of  Buta,  and  the  latter  in  turn  is  the  mother  of 
Ippata.  It  is  the  same  with  the  male  classes ;  but  since 
descent  is  in  the  female  line,  the  Kamilaroi  tribes  derive 
themselves  from  two  supposed  female  ancestors,  which 
laid  the  foundation  for  two  original  gentes.  By  tracing 
these  descents  still  further  it  will  be  found  that  the  blood 
of  each  class  passes  through  all  the  classes. 

Although  each  individual  bears  one  of  the  class  names 
above  given,  it  will  be  understood  that  each  has  in  addi- 
tion the  single  personal  name,  which  is  common  among 
savage  as  well  as  barbarous  tribes.  The  more  closely 
this  organization  upon  sex  is  scrutinized,  the  more  re- 
markable it  seems  as  the  work  of  savages.  When  once 
established,   and   after  that  transmitted   through   a   few 

"Systems  of  Consanguinity  and  Affinity  of  the  Human 
Family,  (Smithsonian  Contributions  to  Knowledge),"  vol.  xvll, 
p.  420,  "et  seq." 


54  ANCIEMT  SOCIETY 

generations,  it  would  hold  society  with  such  power  as  to 
become  difficult  of  displacement.  It  would  require  a 
similar  and  higher  system,  and  centuries  of  time,  to  ac- 
complish this  result ;  particularly  if  the  range  of  the  con- 
jugal system  would  thereby  be  abridged. 

The  gentile  organization  supervened  naturally  upon 
the  classes  as  a  higher  organization,  by  simply  enfolding 
them  unchanged.  That  it  was  subsequent  in  point  of 
time,  is  shown  by  the  relations  of  the  two  systems,  by  the 
inchoate  condition  of  the  gentes,  by  the  impaired  condi- 
tion of  the  classes  through  encroachments  by  the  gens, 
and  by  the  fact  that  the  class  is  still  the  unit  of  organi- 
zation. These  conclusions  will  be  made  apparent  in  the 
sequel. 

From  the  preceding  statements  the  composition  of  the 
gentes  will  be  understood  when  placed  in  their  relations 
to  the  classes.  The  latter  are  in  pairs  of  brothers  and 
sisters  derived  from  each  other;  and  the  gentes  them- 
selves, through  the  classes,  are  in  pairs,  as  follows : 

Gentes.  Male.        Female.     Male.      Female. 

1.  Iguana.  All  are  Murri     &  Mata,  or  Kubbi  &  Kapota. 

2.  Emu.  All  are  Kumbo  &  Buta,  or  Ippai   &  Ippata. 

3.  Kangaroo.      All  are  Murri     &  Mata,  or  Kubbi  &  Kapota. 

4.  Bandicoot.     All  are  Kumbo  &  Buta,  or  Ippai   &  Ippata. 

5.  Opossum.       All  are  Murri     &  Mata,  or  Kubbi  &  Kapota. 

6.  Blacksnake.  All  are  Kumbo  &  Buta,  or  Ippai   &  Ippata. 

The  connection  of  children  with  a  particular  gens  is 
proven  by  the  law  of  marriage.  Thus,  Iguana-Mata 
must  marry  Kumbo ;  her  children  are  Kubbi  and  Kapota, 
and  necessarily  Iguana  in  gens,  because  descent  is  in  the 
female  line.  Iguana-Kapota  must  marry  Ippai ;  her  chil- 
dren are  Murri  and  Mata,  and  also  Iguana  in  gens,  for 
the  same  reason.  In  like  manner  Emu-Buta  must  marry 
Murri ;  her  children  are  Ippai  and  Ippata,  and  of  the  Emu 
gens.  So  Emu-Ippata  must  marry  Kubbi ;  her  children 
are  Kumbo  and  Buta,  and  also  of  the  Emu  gens.  In  this 
manner  the  gens  is  maintained  by  keeping  in  its  mem- 
bership the  children  of  all  its  female  members.  The  same 
is  true  in  all  respects  of  each  of  the  remaining  gentes. 


ORaANTZATION  OF  SOCIETY  ON  BASIS  OP  SEX         56 

It  will  be  noticed  that  each  gens  is  made  up,  theoretically, 
of  the  descendants  of  two  supposed  female  ancestors,  and 
contains  four  of  the  eight  classes.  It  seems  probable  that 
originally  there  were  but  two  male,  and  two  female 
classes,  which  were  set  opposite  to  each  other  in  respect 
to  the  right  of  marriage;  and  that  the  four  afterward 
subdivided  into  eight.  The  classes  as  an  anterior  organi- 
zation were  evidently  arranged  within  the  gentes,  and 
not  formed  by  the  subdivision  of  the  latter. 

Moreover,  since  the  Iguana,  Kangaroo  and  Opossum 
gentes  are  found  to  be  counterparts  of  each  other,  in  the 
classes  they  contain,  it  follows  that  they  are  subdivisions 
of  an  original  gens.  Precisely  the  same  is  true  of  Emu, 
Bandicoot  and  Blacksnake,  in  both  particulars;  thus  re- 
ducing the  six  to  two  original  gentes,  with  the  right  in 
each  to  marry  into  the  other,  but  not  into  itself.  It  is 
confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  members  of  the  first  three 
gentes  could  not  originally  intermarry ;  neither  could  the 
members  of  the  last  three.  The  reason  which  prevented 
intermarriage  in  the  gens,  when  the  three  were  one, 
would  follow  the  subdivisions  because  they  were  of  the 
same  descent  although  under  different  gentile  names. 
Exactly  the  same  thing  is  found  among  the  Seneca-Iro- 
quois, as  will  hereafter  be  shown. 

Since  marriage  is  restricted  to  particular  classes,  when 
there  were  but  two  gentes,  one-half  of  all  the  females  of 
one  were,  theoretically,  the  wives  of  one-half  of  all  the 
males  of  the  other.  After  their  subdivision  into  six  the 
benefit  of  marrying  out  of  the.  gens,  which  was  the  chief 
advantage  of  the  institution,  was  arrested,  if  not  neutral- 
ized, by  the  presence  of  the  classes  together  with  the 
restrictions  mentioned.  It  resulted  in  continuous  in-and- 
in  marriages  beyond  the  immediate  degree  of  brother  and 
sister.  If  the  gens  could  have  eradicated  the  classes  this 
evil  would,  in  a  great  measure,  have    been    removed. 

«  If  a  diagram  of  descents  Is  mide,  for  example,  of  Ippal  and 
Kapota,  and  carried  to  the  fourth  generation,  giving  to  each 
Intermediate  pair  two  children,  a  male  and  a  female,  the  fol- 
lowing results  will  appear.  The  children  of  Ippal  and  Kapota 
are  Murri  and  Mata.  As  brothers  and  sisters  the  latter  cannot 
marry.  At  the  second  degree,  the  children  of  Murrl,  married 
to  Buta,  are  Ippal  and  Ippata,  and  of  Mata  married  to  Kumbo, 


6d  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

The  organization  into  classes  seems  to  have  been  directed 
to  the  single  object  of  breaking  up  the  intermarriage  of 
brothers  and  sisters,  which  affords  a  probable  explana- 
tion of  the  origin  of  the  system.  But  since  it  did  not 
look  beyond  this  special  abomination  it  retained  a  con- 
jugal system  nearly  as  objectionable,  as  well  as  cast  it  in 
a  permanent  form. 

It  remains  to  notice  an  innovation  upon  the  original 
constitution  of  the  classes,  and  in  favor  of  the  gens, 
which  reveals  a  movement,  still  pending,  in  the  direction 
of  the  true  ideal  of  the  gens.  It  is  shown  in  two  partic- 
ulars :  firstly,  in  allowing  each  triad  of  gentes  to  inter- 
marry with  each  other,  to  a  limited  extent;  secondly, 
to  marry  into  classes  not  before  permitted.  Thus,  Igu- 
ana-]\Iurri  can  now  marry  Alata  in  the  Kangaroo  gens, 
his  collateral  sister,  whereas  originally  he  was  restricted 
to  Buta  in  the  opposite  three.  So  Iguana-Kubbi  can  now 
marry  Kapota,  his  collateral  sister,  Emu-Kumbo  can  now 
marry  Buta,  and  Emu-Ippai  can  marry  Ippata  in  the 
Blacksnake  gens,  contrary  to  original  limitations.  Each 
class  of  males  in  each  triad  of  gentes  seems  now  to  be 
allowed  one  additional  class  of  females  in  the  two  re- 
maining gentes  of  the  same  triad,  from  which  they  were 
before  excluded.    The  memoranda    sent   by    Mr.    Fison, 


are  Kubbi  and  Kapota.  Of  these,  Ippai  marries  his  cousin 
Kapota,  and  Kubbi  marries  liis  cousin  Ippata.  It  will  be  noticed 
tliat  tlie  eight  classes  are  reproduced  from  two  in  tiie  second 
and  third  tjenerations,  witii  the  exception  of  Kumbo  and  Buta. 
At  the  next  or  tliird  degree,  there  are  two  Murrls,  two  Matas, 
two  Kumbos,  and  two  Butas;  of  whom  the  JIurris  marry  tiie 
Butas,  tiieir  second  cousins,  and  the  Kubbis  the  Matas,  tlielr 
second  cousins.  At  tlie  fourtli  generation  tliere  are  four  each 
of  Ippais  Kapotas  Kubbis  and  Ippatas,  wlio  are  tliird  cousins. 
Of  tliese,  the  Ippais  marry  the  Kapotas,  and  the  Kubbis  the 
Ippatas;  and  tlius  it  runs  from  generation  to  generation.  A 
similar  chart  of  the  remaining  marriageable  classes  will  pro- 
Auce  like  results.  Tliese  details  are  tedious,  but  they  make  the 
fact  apparent  that  in  this  condition  of  ancient  society  they  not 
only  intermarry  constantly,  but  are  compelled  to  do  so  through 
this  organization  upon  sex.  Cohabitation  would  not  follow  this 
Irvariable  course  because  an  entire  male  and  female  class  were 
married  in  a  group;  but  its  occurrence  must  have  been  con- 
stant under  the  system.  One  of  the  primary  objects  secured  by 
the  gens,  when  fully  matured,  was  thus  defeated:  namely,  the 
segregation  of  a  moiety  of  the  descendants  of  a  supposed  com- 
mon ancestor  under  a  prohibition  of  intermarriage,  followed 
by  a  right  of  marrying  into  any  other  gens. 


ORGANIZATION  OF   SOCIETY  ON   BASIS   OF   SEX         57 

however,  do  not  show  a  change  to  the  full  extent  here 
indicated.^ 

This  innovation  would  plainly  have  been  a  retrograde 
movement  but  that  it  tended  to  break  down  the  classes. 
The  line  of  progress  among  the  Kamilaroi,  so  far  as  any 
is  observable,  was  from  classes  into  gentes,  followed  by 
a  tendency  to  make  the  gens  instead  of  the  class  the  unit 
of  the  social  organism.  In  this  movement  the  overshad- 
owing system  of  cohabitation  was  the  resisting  element. 
Social  advancement  was  impossible  without  diminishing 
its  extent,  which  was  equally  impossible  so  long  as  the 
classes,  with  the  privileges  they  conferred,  remained  in 
full  vitality.  The  jura  conjugialia,  which  appertained  to 
these  classes,  were  the  dead  weight  upon  the  Kamilaroi, 
without  emancipation  from  which  they  would  have  re- 
mained for  additional  thousands  of  years  in  the  same  con- 
dition, substantially,  in  which  they  were  found. 

An  organization  somewhat  similar  is  indicated  by  the 
punalua  of  the  Hawaiians  which  will  be  hereafter  ex- 
plained. AMierever  the  middle  or  lower  stratum  of 
savagery  is  uncovered,  marriages  of  entire  groups  under 
usages  defining  the  groups,  have  been  discovered  either 
in  absolute  form,  or  such  traces  as  to  leave  little  doubt 
that  such  marriages  were  normal  throughout  this  period 
of  man's  history.  It  is  immaterial  whether  the  group,  the- 
oretically, was  large  or  small,  the  necessities  of  their  con- 
dition would  set  a  practical'  limit  to  the  size  of  the  group 
living  together  under  this  custom.  If  then  community 
of  husbands  and  wives  is  found  to  have  been  a  law  of 
the  savage  state,  and,  therefore,  the  essential  condition 
of  society  in  savagery,  the  inference  would  be  conclusive 
that  our  own  savage  ancestors  shared  in  this  common 
experience  of  the  human  race. 

In  such  usages  and  customs  an  explanation  of  the  low 
condition  of  savages  is  found.  If  men  in  savagery  had 
not  been  left  behind,  in  isolated  portions  of  the  earth,  to 
testify  concerning  the  early  condition  of  mankind  in  gen- 
eral, it  would  have  been  impossible  to  form  any  definite 


'Proc.   Am.   Acad.   Arts   and   Sciences,"   viil,    436. 


58  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

conception  of  what  it  must  have  been.  An  important  in- 
ference at  once  arises,  namely,  that  the  institutions  of 
mankind  have  sprung  up  in  a  progressive  connected 
series,  each  of  which  represents  the  result  of  unconscious 
reformatory  movements  to  extricate  society  from  exist- 
ing evils.  The  wear  of  ages  is  upon  these  institutions, 
for  the  proper  understanding  of  which  they  must  be 
studied  in  this  light.  It  cannot  be  assumed  that  the  Au- 
stralian savages  are  now  at  the  bottom  of  the  scale,  for 
their  arts  and  institutions,  humble  as  they  are,  show  the 
contrary ;  neither  is  there  any  ground  for  assuming  their 
degradation  from  a  higher  condition,  because  the  facts 
of  human  experience  afford  no  sound  basis  for  such  an 
hypothesis.  Cases  of  physical  and  mental  deterioration 
in  tribe?  and  nations  may  be  admitted,  for  reasons  which 
are  known,  but  they  never  interrupted  the  general  prog- 
ress of  mankind.  All  the  facts  of  human  knowledge 
and  experience  tend  to  show  that  the  human  race,  as  a 
whole,  have  steadily  progressed  from  a  low^er  to  a  higher 
condition.  The  arts  by  which  savages  maintain  their 
lives  are  remarkably  persistent.  They  are  never  lost  un- 
til superseded  by  others  higher  in  degree.  By  the  prac- 
tice of  these  arts,  and  by  the  experience  gained  through 
social  organizations,  mankind  have  advanced  under  a 
necessary  law  of  development,  although  their  progress 
may  have  been  substantially  imperceptible  for  centuries. 
It  was  the  same  with  races  as  with  individuals,  although 
tribes  and  nations  have  perished  through  the  disruption 
of  their  ethnic  life. 

The  Australian  classes  afford  the  first,  and,  so  far  as 
the  writer  is  aware,  the  only  case  in  which  we  are  able 
to  look  down  into  the  incipient  stages  of  the  organiza- 
tion into  gentes,  and  even  through  it  upon  an  interior 
organization  so  archaic  as  that  upon  sex.  It  seems  to 
afford  a  glimpse  at  society  when  it  verged  upon  the  prim- 
itive. Among  other  tribes  the  gens  seems  to  have  ad- 
vanced in  proportion  to  the  curtailment  of  the  conjugal 
system.  Mankind  rise  in  the  scale  and  the  family  ad- 
vances through  its  successive  forms,  as  these  rights  sink 


0RGANIJ2AT10N  OF  SOCIETT  ON  BASIS  OF  SEX         59 

down  before  the  eflforts  of  society  to  improve'  its  internal 
organization. 

The  AustraHans  might  not  have  effected  the  overthrow 
of  the  classes  in  thousands  of  years  if  they  had  remained 
undiscovered;  while  more  favored  continental  tribes  had 
long  before  perfected  the  gens,  then  advanced  it  through 
its  successive  phases,  and  at  last  laid  it  aside  after  enter- 
ing upon  civilization.  Facts  illustrating  the  rise  of  suc- 
cessive social  organizations,  such  as  that  upon  sex,  and 
that  upon  kin  are  of  the  highest  ethnological  value.  A 
knowledge  of  what  they  indicate  is  eminently  desirable, 
if  the  early  history  of  mankind  is  to  be  measurably  re- 
covered. 

Among  the  Polynesian  tribes  the  gens  was  unknown ; 
but  traces  of  a  system  analogous  to  the  Australian  classes 
appear  in  the  Hawaiian  custom  of  punalua.  Original 
ideas,  absolutely  independent  of  previous  knowledge  and 
experience,  are  necessarily  few  in  number.  Were  it  pos- 
sible to  reduce  the  sum  of  human  ideas  to  underived 
originals,  the  small  numerical  result  would  be  startling. 
Development  is  the  method  of  human  progress. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts  some  of  the  excrescences  of 
modern  civilization,  such  as  Mormonism,  are  seen  to  be 
relics  of  the  old  savagism  not  yet  eradicated  from  the 
human  brain.  We  have  the  same  brain,  perpetuated  by 
reproduction,  which  worked  in  the  skulls  of  barbarians 
and  savages  in  by-gone  ages ;  and  it  has  come  down  to 
us  ladened  and  saturated  with  the  thoughts,  aspirations 
and  passions,  with  which  it  was  busied  through  the  in- 
termediate periods.  It  is  the  same  brain  grown  older  and 
larger  with  the  experience  of  the  ages.  These  outcrops 
of  barbarism  are  so  many  revelations  of  its  ancient  pro- 
clivities. They  are  explainable  as  a  species  of  mental 
atavism. 

Out  of  a  few  germs  of  thought,  conceived  in  the  early 
ages,  have  been  evolved  all  the  principal  institutions  of 
mankind.  Beginning  their  growth  in  the  period  of  sav- 
agery, fermenting  through  the  period  of  barbarism,  they 
have  continued  their  advancement  through  the  period 
of  civilization.     The  evolution  of  these  germs  of  thought 


60  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

has  been  guided  by  a  natural  logic  which  formed  an  es- 
sential attribute  of  the  brain  itself.  So  unerringly  has 
this  principle  performed  its  functions  in  all  conditions  of 
experience,  and  in  all  periods  of  time,  that  its  results  are 
uniform,  coherent  and  traceable  in  their  courses.  These 
results  alone  will  in  time  yield  convincing  proofs  of  the 
unity  of  origin  of  mankind.  The  mental  history  of  the 
human  race,  which  is  revealed  in  institutions,  inventions 
and  discoveries,  is  presumptively  the  history  of  a  single 
species,  perpetuated  through  individuals,  and  developed 
through  experience.  Among  the  original  germs  of 
thought,  which  have  exercised  the  most  powerful  influ- 
ence upon  the  human  mind,  and  upon  human  destiny,  are 
these  which  relate  to  government,  to  the  family,  to  langu- 
age, to  religion,  an  to  property.  They  had  a  definite  be- 
ginning far  back  in  savagery,  and  a  logical  progress,  but 
can  have  no  final  consummation,  because  they  are  still 
progressing,  and  must  ever  continue  to  progress. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  IROQUOIS  GENS 

The  experience  of  mankind,  as  elsewhere  remarked, 
has  developed  but  two  plans  of  government,  using-  the 
word  plan  in  its  scientific  sense.  Both  were  definite  and 
systematic  organizations  of  society.  The  first  and  most 
ancient  was  a  social  organization,  founded  upon  gentes, 
phratries  and  tribes.  The  second  and  latest  in  tim.e  was 
a  political  organization,  founded  upon  territory  and  upon 
property.  Under  the  first  a  gentile  society  was  created, 
in  which  the  government  dealt  with  persons  through 
their  relations  to  a  gens  and  tribe.  These  relations  were 
purely  personal.  Under  the  second  a  political  society 
was  instituted,  in  which  the  government  dealt  with  per- 
sons through  their  relations  to  territory,  e.  g.  — the  town- 
ship, the  county,  and  the  state.  These  relations  were 
purely  territorial.  The  two  plans  were  fundamentally 
different.  One  belongs  to  ancient  society,  and  the  other 
to  modern. 

The  gentile  organization  opens  to  us  one  of  the  oldest 
and  most  widely  prevalent  institutions  of  mankind.  It 
furnished  the  nearly  universal  plan  of  government  of  an- 
cient society,  Asiatic.  European,  African  and  Australian. 
It  was  the  instrumentality  by  means  of  which  society  was 
organized  and  held  together.  Commencing  in  savagery, 
and  continuing  through  the  three  sub-periods  of  bar- 
barism, it  remained  until  the  establishment  of  political 
society,  which  did  not  occur  until  after  civilization  had 
commenced.  The  Grecian  gens,  phratry  and  tribe,  the 
Roman  gens,  curia  and  tribe  find  their  analogues  in  the 

•1 


69  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

gens,  phratry  and  tribe  of  the  American  aborigines.  In 
like  manner,  the  Irish  sept,  the  Scottish  clan,  the  phrara 
of  the  Albanians,  and  the  Sanskrit  ganas,  without  extend- 
ing the  comparison  further,  are  the  same  as  the  Amer- 
ican Indian  gens,  which  has  usually  been  called  a  clan. 
As  far  as  our  knowledge  extends,  this  organization  runs 
through  the  entire  ancient  world  upon  all  the  continents, 
and  it  was  brought  down  to  the  historical  period  by  such 
tribes  as  attained  to  civilization.  Nor  is  this  all.  Gentile 
society  wherever  found  is  the  same  in  structural  organi- 
zation and  in  principles  of  action ;  but  changing  from 
lower  to  higher  forms  with  the  progressive  advance- 
ment of  the  people.  These  changes  give  the  history  of 
development  of  the  same  original  conceptions. 

Gens,  genos,  and  ganas  in  Latin,  Greek  and  Sanskrit 
have  alike  the  primary  signification  of  kin.  They  contain 
the  same  element  as  gigno,  gignomai,  and  ganamai,  in  the 
same  languages,  signifying  to  beget;  thus  implying  in 
each  an  immediate  common  descent  of  the  members  of  a 
gens.  A  gens,  therefore,  is  a  body  of  consanguine! 
descended  from  the  same  common  ancestor,  distinguished 
by  a  gentile  name,  and  bound  together  by  affinities  of 
blood.  It  includes  a  moiety  only  of  such  descendants. 
Where  descent  is  in  the  female  line,  as  it  was  universally 
in  the  archaic  period,  the  gens  is  composed  of  a  sup- 
posed female  ancestor  and  her  children,  together  with 
the  children  of  her  female  descendants,  through  females, 
in  perpetuity ;  and  where  descent  is  in  the  male  line — 
into  which  it  was  changed  after  the  appearance  of  prop- 
erty in  masses — of  a  supposed  male  ancestor  and  his 
children,  together  with  the  children  of  his  male  descend- 
ants, through  males,  in  perpetuity.  The  family  name 
among  ourselves  is  a  survival  of  the  gentile  name,  with 
descent  in  the  male  line,  and  passing  in  the  same  manner. 
The  modern  family,  as  expressed  by  its  name,  is  an  un- 
organized gens ;  with  the  bond  of  kin  broken,  and  its 
members  as  widely  dispersed  as  the  family  name  is  found. 

Among  the  nations  named,  the  gens  indicated  a  social 
organization  of  a  remarkable  character,  which  had  pre- 
vailed from  an  antiquity  so  remote  that  its  origin  was 


IROQUOIS  GENS  g3 

lost  in  the  obscurity  of  far  distant  ages.  It  was  also  the 
unit  of  organization  of  a  social  and  governmental  sys- 
tem, the  fundamental  basis  of  ancient  society.  This  or- 
ganization was  not  confined  to  the  Latin,  Grecian  and 
Sanskrit  speaking  tribes,  with  whom  it  became  such  a 
conspicuous  institution.  It  has  been  found  in  other 
branches  of  the  Aryan  family  of  nations,  in  the  Sem- 
itic, Uralian  and  Turanian  families,  among  the  tribes 
of  Africa  and  Australia,  and  of  the  American  aborigines. 

An  exposition  of  the  elementary  constitution  of  the 
gens,  with  its  functions,  rights,  and  privileges,  requires 
our  first  attention ;  after  which  it  will  be  traced,  as  widely 
as  possible,  among  the  tribes  and  nations  of  mankind  in 
order  to  prove,  by  comparisons,  its  fundamental  unity. 
It  will  then  be  seen  that  it  must  be  regarded  as  one  of 
the  primary  institutions  of  mankind. 

The  gens  has  passed  through  successive  stages  of  de- 
velopment in  its  transition  from  its  archaic  to  its  final 
form  with  the  progress  of  mankind.  These  changes  were 
limited,  in  the  main,  to  two :  firstly,  changing  descent 
from  the  female  line,  which  was  the  archaic  rule,  as 
among  the  Grecian  and  Roman  gentes ;  and,  secondlv, 
changing  the  inheritance  of  the  property  of  a  deceased 
member  of  the  gens  from  his  gentiles,  who  took  it  in 
the  archaic  period,  first  to  his  agnatic  kindred,  and  finally 
to  his  children.  These  changes,  slight  as  they  may  seeni, 
indicate  very  great  changes  of  condition  as  well  as  a 
large  degree  of  progressive  development. 

The  gentile  organization,  originating  in  the  period  of 
savagery,  enduring  through  tlie  three  sub-periods  of 
barbarism,  finally  gave  way,  among  the  more  advanced 
tribes,  when  they  attained  civilization,  the  requirements 
of  which  it  was  unable  to  meet.  Among  the  Greeks  and 
Romans,  political  society  supervened  upon  gentile  soci- 
ety, but  not  until  civilization  had  commenced.  The  town- 
ship (and  its  equivalent,  the  city  ward),  with  its  fixed 
property,  and  the  inhabitants  it  contained,  organized  as 
a  body  politic,  became  the  unit  and  the  basis  of  a  new 
and  radically  different  system  of  government.  After 
political   society  was  instituted,   this   ancient   and   time- 


64  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

honored  organization,  with  the  phratry  and  tribe  devel- 
opment from  it,  gradually  yielded  up  their  existence. 
It  will  be  my  object,  in  the  course  of  this  volume,  to 
trace  the  progress  of  this  organization  from  its  rise  in 
savagery  to  its  final  overthrow  in  civilization ;  for  it  was 
under  gentile  institutions  that  barbarism  was  won  by 
'some  of  the  tribes  of  mankind  while  in  savagery,  and  that 
civilization  was  won  by  the  descendants  of  some  of  the 
same  tribes  while  in  barbarism.  Gentile  institutions  car- 
ried a  portion  of  mankind  from  savagery  to  civilization. 

This  organization  may  be  successfully  studied  both  in 
its  living  and  in  its  historical  forms  in  a  large  number 
of  tribes  and  races.  In  such  an  investigation  it  is  pre- 
ferable to  commence  with  the  gens  in  its  archaic  form, 
and  then  to  follow  it  through  its  successive  modifications 
among  advanced  nations,  in  order  to  discover  both  the 
changes  and  the  causes  which  produced  them.  I  shall 
commence,  therefore,  with  the  gens  as  it  now  exists 
among  the  American  aborigines,  where  it  is  found  in  its 
archaic  form,  and  among  whom  its  theoreticaf  constitu- 
tion and  practical  workings  can  be  investigated  more  suc- 
cessfully than  in  the  historical  gentes  of  the  Greeks  and 
Romans.  In  fact  to  understand  fully  the  gentes  of  the 
latter  nations  a  knowledge  of  the  functions,  and  of  the 
rights,  privileges  and  obligations  of  the  members  of  the 
American  Indian  gens  is  imperatively  necessary. 

In  American  Ethnography  tribe  and  clan  have  been 
used  in  the  place  of  gens  as  an  equivalent  term,  from 
not  perceiving  its  universality.  In  previous  works,  and 
folowing  my  predecessors,  I  have  so  used  them.^  A 
comparison  of  the  Indian  clan  with  the  gens  of  the 
Greeks  and  Romans  reveals  at  once  their  identity  in 
structure  and  functions.  It  also  extends  to  the  phratry 
and  tribe.     If  the  identity  of  these  several  organizations 


I  111  "Letters  on  the  Iroquois  by  Skenandoah,"  published  In 
the  "American  Review"  in  1847;  in  the  "Leapue  of  the  Iro- 
quois," published  in  1851;  and  in  "Systems  of  Consanguinity 
and  Affinity  of  the  Human  Family,"  published  in  1871.  ("Smith- 
sonian Contributions  to  Knowledge,"  vol.  xvil.)  I  have  used 
"tribe"  as  the  equivalent  of  "gens,"  and  in  its  place;  but  with 
an  exact  definition  of  the  group. 


IROQUOIS  GENS  55 

can  be  shown,  of  which  there  can  be  no  doubt,  there  is 
a  manifest  propriety  in  returning  to  the  Latin  and  Gre- 
cian terminologies  which  are  full  and  precise  as  well  as 
historical.  I  have  made  herein  the  substitutions  required, 
and  propose  to  show  the  parallelism  of  these  several  or- 
ganizations. 

The  plan  of  government  of  the  American  aborigines 
commenced  with  the  gens  and  ended  with  the  confeder- 
acy, the  latter  being  the  highest  point  to  which  their  gov- 
ernmental institutions  attained.  It  gave  for  the  organic 
series :  first,  the  gens,  a  body  of  consanguinei  having  a 
common  gentile  name ;  second,  the  phratry,  an  assem- 
blage of  related  gentes  united  in  a  higher  association  for 
certain  common  objects ;  third,  the  tribe,  an  assemblage 
of  gentes,  usually  organized  in  phratries,  all  the  mem- 
bers of  which  spoke  the  same  dialect ;  and  fourth,  a  con- 
federacy of  tribes,  the  members  of  which  respectively 
spoke  dialects  of  the  same  stock  language.  It  resulted 
in  a  gentile  society  (socictas),  as  distinguised  from  a 
political  society  or  state  (ciz'ifas).  The  difference  be- 
tween the  two  is  wide  and  fundamental.  There  was 
neither  a  political  society,  nor  a  citizen,  nor  a  state,  nor 
any  civilization  in  America  when  it  was  discovered.  One 
entire  ethnical  period  intervened  between  the  highest 
American  Indian  tribes  and  the  beginning  of  civiliza- 
tion, as  that  term  is  properly  understood. 

In  like  manner  the  plan  of  government  of  the  Gre- 
cian tribes,  anterior  to  civilization,  involved  the  same 
organic  series,  with  the  exception  of  the  last  member : 
first,  the  gens,  a  body  of  consanguinei  bearing  a  common 
gentile  name ;  second,  the  phratry,  an  assemblage  of 
gentes,  united  for  social  and  religious  objects;  third,  the 
tribe,  an  assemblage  of  gentes  of  the  same  lineage  or- 
ganized in  phratries ;  and  fourth,  a  nation,  an  assem- 
blage of  tribes  who  had  coalesced  in  a  gentile  society 
upon  one  common  territory,  as  the  four  tribes  of  the 
Athenians  in  Attica,  and  the  three  Dorian  tribes  at 
Sparta.  Coalescence  was  a  higher  process  than  confeder- 
ating. In  the  latter  case  the  tribes  occupied  independent 
territories. 


M  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

The  Roman  plan  and  series  were  the  same :  First,  the 
gens,  a  body  of  consanguinei  bearing  a  common  gentile 
name;  second,  the  curia,  an  assemblage  of  gentes  united 
in  a  higher  association  for  the  preformance  of  religious 
and  governmental  functions ;  third,  the  tribe,  an  assem- 
blage of  gentes  organized  in  curiae;  and  fourth,  a  nation, 
an  assemblage  of  tribes  who  had  coalesced  in  a  gentile 
society.  The  early  Romans  styled  themselves,  with  en- 
tire propriety,  the  Populus  Romanus. 

Wherever  gentile  institutions  prevailed,  and  prior  to 
the  establishment  of  political  society,  we  find  peoples  or 
nations  in  gentile  societies,  and  nothing  beyond.  The 
state  did  not  exist.  Their  goverments  were  essentially 
democratical,  because  the  principles  on  which  the  gens, 
phratry  and  tribe  were  organized  were  democratical. 
This  last  proposition,  though  contrary  to  received  opini- 
ons, is  historically  important.  The  truth  of  it  can  be 
tested  as  the  gens,  phratry  and  tribe  of  the  American 
aborigines,  and  the  same  organizations  among  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  are  successively  considered.  As  the  gens, 
the  unit  of  organization,  was  essentially  democratical,  so 
necessarily  was  the  phratry  composed  of  gentes,  the  tribe 
composed  of  phraties,  and  the  gentile  society  formed  by 
the  confederating,  or  coalescing  of  tribes. 

The  gens,  though  a  very  ancient  social  organization 
founded  upon  kin,  does  not  include  all  the  descendants 
of  a  common  ancestor.  It  was  for  the  reason  that  when 
the  gens  came  in,  marriage  between  single  pairs  was  un- 
known, and  descent  through  males  could  not  be  traced 
with  certainty.  Kindred  were  linked  together  chiefly 
through  the  bond  of  their  maternity.  In  the  ancient  gens 
descent  was  limited  to  the  female  line.  It  embraced  all 
such  persons  as  traced  their  descent  from  a  supposed 
common  female  ancestor,  through  females,  the  evidence 
of  the  fact  being  the  possession  of  a  common  gentile 
name.  It  would  include  this  ancestor  and  her  children, 
the  children  of  her  daughters,  and  the  children  of  her 
female  descendants,  through  females,  in  perpetuity ; 
whilst  the  children  of  her  sons,  and  the  children  of  her 
male  descendants,  through  males,  would  belong  to  other 


IROQUOIS  GENS  67 

gentes;  namely,  those  of  their  respective  mothers.  Such 
was  the  gens  in  its  archaic  form,  when  the  paternity  of 
children  was  not  certainly  ascertainable,  and  when  their 
maternity  afforded  the  only  certain  criterion  of  descents. 

This  state  of  descents,  which  can  be  traced  back  to  the 
Middle  Status  of  savagery,  as  among  the  Australians, 
remained  among  the  American  aborigines  through  the 
Upper  Status  of  savagery,  and  into  and  through  the 
Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  with  occasional  exceptions. 
In  the  Middle  Status  barbarism,  the  Indian  tribes  began 
to  change  descent  from  the  female  line  to  the  male,  as 
the  syndyasmian  family  of  the  period  began  to  assume 
monogamian  characteristics.  In  the  Upper  Status  of 
barbarism,  descent  had  become  changed  to  the  male  line 
among  the  Grecian  tribes,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Lycians,  and  among  the  Italian  tribes,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  Etruscans.  The  influence  of  property  and  its 
inheritance  in  producing  the  monogamian  family  which 
assured  the  paternity  of  children,  and  in  causing  a  change 
of  descent  from  the  female  line  to  the  male,  will  be  con- 
sidered elsewhere.  Between  the  two  extremes,  repre- 
sented by  the  two  rules  of  descent,  three  entire  ethnical 
periods  intervene,  covering  many  thousands  of  years. 

With  descent  in  the  male  line,  the  gens  embraced  all 
persons  who  traced  their  descent  from  a  supposed  com- 
mon male  ancestor,  through  males  only,  the  evidence  of 
the  fact  being,  as  in  the  other  case,  the  possession  of  a 
common  gentile  name.  It  would  include  this  ancestor 
and  his  children,  the  children  of  his  sons,  and  the  chil- 
dren of  his  male  descendants,  through  males,  in  perpe- 
.  tuity;  whilst  the  children  of  his  daughters,  and  the  chil- 
dren of  his  female  descendants,  through  females,  would 
belong  to  other  gentes;  namely,  those  of  their  respective 
fathers.  Those  retained  in  the  gens  in  one  case  were 
those  excluded  in  the  other,  and  zice  versa.  Such  was 
the  gens  in  its  final  form,  after  the  paternity  of  children 
became  ascertainable  through  the  rise  of  monogamy. 
The  transition  of  a  gens  from  one  form  into  the  other 
was  perfectly  simple,  without  involving  its  overthrow. 
All  that  was  needed  was  an  adequate  motive,  as  will  else- 


68  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

where  be  shown.  The  same  gens,  with  descent  changed 
to  the  male  hne,  remained  the  unit  of  the  social  system. 
It  could  not  have  reached  the  second  form  without  pre- 
viously existing  in  the  first. 

As  intermarriage  in  the  gens  was  prohibited,  it  with- 
drew its  members  from  the  evils  of  consanguine  marri- 
ages, and  thus  tended  to  increase  the  vigor  of  the  stock. 
The  gens  came  into  being  upon  three  principal  concep- 
tions, namely ;  the  bond  of  kin,  a  pure  lineage  through 
descent  in  the  female  line,  and  non-intermarriage  in  the 
gens.  When  the  idea  of  a  gens  was  developed,  it  would 
naturally  have  taken  the  form  of  gentes  in  pairs,  be- 
cause the  children  of  the  males  were  excluded,  and  be- 
cause it  was  equally  necessary  to  organize  both  classes 
of  descendants.  With  two  gentes  started  into  being 
simultaneously  the  whole  result  would  have  been  at- 
tained ;  since  the  males  and  females  of  one  gens  would 
marry  the  females  and  males  of  the  other;  and  the  chil- 
dren, following  the  gentes  of  their  respective  mothers, 
would  be  divided  between  them.  Resting  on  the  bond 
of  kin  as  its  cohesive  principle  the  gens  afforded  to 
each  individual  member  that  personal  protection  which 
no  other  existing  power  could  give. 

After  considering  the  rights,  privileges  and  obligations 
of  its  members  it  will  be  necessary  to  follow  the  gens 
in  its  organic  relations  to  a  phratry,  tribe  and  confeder- 
acy, in  order  to  find  the  uses  to  which  it  was  applied,  the 
privileges  which  it  conferred,  and  the  principles  which 
it  fostered.  The  gentes  of  the  Iroquois  will  be  taken  as 
the  standard  exemplification  of  this  institution  in  the 
Ganowanian  family.  They  had  carried  their  scheme  ot 
government  from  the  gens  to  the  confederacy,  making  it 
complete  in  each  of  its  parts,  and  an  excellent  illustra- 
tion of  the  capabilities  of  the  gentile  organization  in  its 
archaic  form.  When  discovered  the  Iroquois  were  in 
the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  and  well  advanced  in  the 
arts  of  life  pertaining  to  this  condition.  They  manu- 
factured nets,  twine  and  rope  from  filaments  of  bark ; 
wove  belts  and  burden  straps,  with  warp  and  woof,  from 
the  same  materials ;  they  manufactured  earthen  vessels 


IROQUOIS  GENS  69 

and  pipes  from  clay  mixed  with  siliceous  materials  and 
hardened  by  fire,  some  of  which  were  ornamented  with 
rude  medallions ;  they  cultivated  maize,  beans,  squashes, 
and  tobacco,  in  garden  beds,  and  made  unleavened  bread 
from  pounded  maize  which  they  boiled  in  earthern  ves- 
sels;^ they  tanned  skins  into  leather  with  which  they 
manufactured  kilts,  leggins,  and  moccasins ;  they  used 
the  bow  and  arrow  and  warclub  as  their  principal  weap- 
ons ;  used  flint  stone  and  bone  implements,  wore  skin 
garments,  and  were  expert  hunters  and  fishermen.  They 
constructed  long  joint-tenement  houses  large  enough  to 
accommodate  five,  ten,  and  twenty  families,  and  each 
household  practiced  communism  in  living ;  but  they  were 
unacquainted  with  the  use  of  stone  or  adobe-brick  in 
house  architecture,  and  with  the  use  of  the  native  metals. 
In  mental  capacity  and  in  general  advancement  they  were 
the  representative  branch  of  the  Indian  family  north  of 
New  Mexico.  General  F.  A.  Walker  has  sketched  their 
military  career  in  two  paragraphs :  "The  career  of  the 
Iroquois  was  simply  terrific.  They  were  the  scourge  of 
God  upon  the  aborigines  of  the  continent." 

From  lapse  of  time  the  Iroquois  tribes  have  come  to 
dififer  slightly  in  the  number,  and  in  the  names  of  their 
respective  gentes.  The  largest  number  being  eight,  as 
follows : 

Senecas. — i.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Turtle.  4.  Beaver. 
5.  Deer,     6.  Snipe.     7.  Heron.     8.  Hawk. 

Cayugas. — i.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Turtle.  4.  Beaver. 
5.  Deer.     6.  Snipe.     7.  Eel.    8.  Hawk. 

Onondagas. —  i.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Turtle.  4.  Beaver. 
5.  Deer.    6.  Snipe.    7.  Eel.    8.  Ball. 

Oneidas:- — i.  Wolf.     2.  Bear.     3.  Turtle. 

Mohazvks. —  I.  Wolf.     2.  Bear.     3.  Turtle. 

Tiiscaroras. — i.  Gray  \\'olf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Great  Turtle. 
4.  Beaver.  ^.  Yellow  Wolf.  6.  Snipe.  7.  Eel.  8.  Lit- 
tle Turtle. 

These  changes  show  that  certain  gentes  in  some  of  the 

I    These    loaves   or   cakes   were   about    six    Inches     In     diameter 
and  an  Inch  thick. 

•  "North   American   Review,"   April   No.,    1873.   p.   370   Note. 


%  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

tribes  have  become  extinct  through  the  vicissitudes  of 
time;  and  that  others  have  been  formed  by  the  segmen- 
tation of  over-full  gentes. 

With  a  knowledge  of  the  rights,  privileges  and  obliga- 
tions of  the  members  of  a  gens,  its  capabilities  as  the  unit 
of  a  social  and  governmental  system  will  be  more  fully 
understood,  as  well  as  the  manner  in  which  it  entered 
into  the  higher  organizations  of  the  phratry,  tribe,  and 
confederacy. 

The  gens  is  individualized    by    the    following  rights, 
privileges,  and  obligations  conferred    and    imposed  upon 
its  members,  and  which  made  up  the  jus  gentilicium. 
I.     The  right  of  electing  its  sachem  and  chiefs. 

II.     The  right  of  deposing  its  sachem  and  chiefs. 

III.  The  obligation  not  to<  marry  in  the  gens. 

IV.  Mutual  rights  of  inheritance  of  the  property  of 

deceased  members. 

V.     Reciprocal    obligations  of  help,  defense,  and  re- 
dress of  injuries. 

VI.     The  right  of  bestozinng  names  upon  its  members. 
VII.     The  right  of  adopting  strangers  into  the  gens. 
VIII.     Common  religious  rites,  query. 

IX.     A  common  burial  place. 
X.     A  council  of  the  gens. 

These  functions  and  attributes  gave  vitality  as  well  as 
individuality  to  the  organization,  and  protected  the  per- 
sonal rights  of  its  members. 

I.     The  right  of  electing  its  sachem  and  chiefs. 

Nearly  all  the  American  Indian  tribes  had  two  grades 
of  chiefs,  who  may  be  distinguished  as  sachems  and  com- 
mon chiefs.  Of  these  two  primary  grades  all  other  grades 
were  varieties.  They  were  elected  in  each  gens  from 
among  its  members.  A  son  could  not  be  chosen  to  suc- 
ceed his  father,  where  descent  W'as  in  the  female  line,  be- 
cause he  belonged  to  a  different  gens,  and  no  gens  would 
have  a  chief  or  sachem  from  any  gens  but  its  own.  The 
office  of  sachem  was  hereditary  in  the  gens,  in  the  sense 
that  "it  was  filled  as  often  as  a  vacancy  occurred ;  while 
the  office  of  chief  was.  non-hereditary,  laecause  it  was  be- 
stowed in  reward  of  personal  merit,  and  died  with  the 


Iroquois  gens  ii 

individual.  Aloreover,  the  duties  of  a  sachem  were  con- 
fined to  the  affairs  of  peace.  He  could  not  go  out  to  war 
as  a  sachem.  On  the  other  hand,  the  chiefs  who  were 
raised  to  office  for  personal  bravery,  for  wisdom  in  af- 
fairs, or  for  eloquence  in  council,  were  usually  the  su- 
perior class  in  ability,  though  not  in  authority  over  the 
gens.  The  relation  of  the  sachem  was  primarily  to  the 
gens,  of  which  he  was  the  official  head;  while  that  of 
the  chief  was  primarily  to  the  tribe,  of  the  council  of 
which  he,  as  well  as  the  sachem,  were  members. 

The  office  of  sachem  had  a  natural  foundation  in  the 
gens,  as  an  organized  body  of  consanguinei  which,  as 
such,  needed  a  representative  head.  As  an  office,  how- 
ever, it  is  older  than  the  gentile  organization,  since  it  is 
found  among  tribes  not  thus  organized,  but  among  .whom 
it  had  a  similar  basis  in  the  punaluan  group,  and  even  in 
the  anterior  horde.  In  the  gens  the  constituency  of  the 
sachem  was  clearly  defined,  the  basis  of  the  relation  was 
permanent,  and  its  duties  paternal.  WTiile  the  office 
was  hereditary  in  the  gens  it  was  elective  among  its  male 
members.  When  the  Indian  system  of  consanguinity  is 
considered,  it  will  be  found  that  all  the  male  members  of 
a  gens  were  either  brothers  to  each  other,  ow^n  or  col- 
lateral, uncles  or  nephews,  own  or  collateral,  or  col- 
lateral grandfathers  and  grandsons.  ^  This  will  explain 
the  succession  of  the  office  of  sachem  which  passed  from 
brother  to  brother,  or  from  uncle  to  nephew,  and  very 
rarely  from  grandfather  to  grandson.  The  choice,  which 
was  by  free  suffrage  of  both  males  and  females  of  adult 
age,  usually  fell  upon  a  brother  of  the  decased  sachem, 
or  upon  one  of  the  sons  of  a  sister;  an  own  brother,  or 
the  son  of  an  own  sister  being  most  likely  to  be  prefer- 
red. As  between  several  brothers,  own  and  collateral, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  sons  of  several  sisters,  own  and 
collateral,  on  the  other,  there  was  no  priority  of  right, 

1  The  sons  of  .several  sisters  are  brothers  to  each  other. 
Instead  of  cousins.  The  latter  are  here  distinguished  as  col- 
lateral brothers.  So  a  man's  brother's  son  is  his  son  instead  of 
his  nephew;  wliile  Ills  collateral  sister's  son  is  his  nephew,  ai 
well  as  his  own  sister's  son.  The  former  Is  distinguished  as 
a  collateral  nepiiew. 


72  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

for  the  reason  that  all  the  male  members  of  the  gens 
were  equally  eligible.  To  make  a  choice  between  them 
was  the  function  of  the  elective  principle. 

Upon  the  death  of  a  sachem,  for  example  among  the 
Seneca-Iroquois,  a  council  of  his  gentiles^  was  convened 
to  name  his  successor.  Two  candidates,  according  to 
their  usages,  must  be  voted  upon;  both  of  them  members 
of  the  gens.  Each  person  of  adult  age  was  called  upon 
to  express  his  or  her  preference,  and  the  one  w'ho  re- 
ceived the  largest  number  of  affirmative  declarations  was 
nominated.  It  still  required  the  assent  of  the  seven  re- 
maining gentes  before  the  nomination  was  complete.  If 
these  gentes,  who  met  for  the  purpose  by  phratries,  re- 
fused to  confirm  the  nomination  it  was  thereby  set  aside, 
and  the  gens  proceeded  to  make  another  choice.  When 
the  person  nominated  by  his  gens  was  accepted  by  the 
remaining  gentes  the  election  was  complete ;  but  it  was 
still  necessary  that  the  new  sachem  should  be  raised  up, 
to  use  their  expression,  or  invested  with  his  office  by  a 
council  of  the  confederacy,  before  he  could  enter  upon 
its  duties.  It  was  their  method  of  conferring  the  ini- 
periiim.  In  this  manner  the  rights  and  interests  of  the 
several  gentes  were  consulted  and  preserved ;  for  the 
sachem  of  a  gens  was  ex  officio  a  member  of  the  council 
of  the  tribe,  and  of  the  higher  council  of  the  confeder- 
acy. The  same  method  of  election  and  of  confirmation 
existed  with  respect  to  the  office  of  chief,  and  for  the 
same  reasons.  But  a  general  council  was  never  con- 
vened to  raise  up  chiefs  below  the  grade  of  a  sachem. 
They  awaited  the  time  when  sachems  were  invested. 

The  principle  of  democracy,  which  was  born  of  the 
gentes,  manifested  itself  in  the  retention  by  the  gentiles 
of  the  right  to  elect  their  sachem  and  chiefs,  in  the  safe- 
guards thrown  around  the  office  to  prevent  usurpation, 
and  in  the  check  upon  the  election  held  by  the  remain- 
ing gentes. 

The  chiefs  in  each  gens  were  usually  proportioned 


I  Pronounced    "gen'-tl-les,"    it    may    l)e    remarked    to    tliose    un- 
famlUar  with  Latin. 


IROQUOIS  GENS  78 

to  the  number  of  its  members.  Among  the  Seneca-Iro- 
quois there  is  one  chief  for  about  every  fifty  persons. 
They  now  number  in  New  York  some  three  thousand, 
and  have  eight  sachems  and  about  sixty  chiefs.  There 
are  reasons  for  supposing  that  the  proportionate  number 
is  now  greater  than  in  former  times.  With  respect  to  the 
number  of  gentes  in  a  tribe,  the  more  numerous  the  peo- 
ple the  greater,  usually,  the  number  of  gentes.  The  num- 
ber varied  in  the  different  tribes,  from  three  among  the 
Delawares  and  Munsees  to  upwards  of  twenty  among  the 
Ojibwas  and  Creeks;  six,  eight,  and  ten  being  common 
numbers. 

II.  The  right  of  deposing  its  sachem  and  chiefs. 
This  right,  which  was  not  less  important  than  that  to 

elect,  was  reserved  by  the  members  of  the  gens.  Although 
the  office  was  nominallv  for  life,  the  tenure  was  practi- 
cally during  good  behavior,  in  consequence  of  the  power 
to  depose.  Th.e  installation  of  a  sachem  was  symbolized 
as  "putting  on  the  horns,"  and  his  deposition  as  "taking 
off  the  horns."  Among  widely  separated  tribes  of  man- 
kind horns  have  been  made  the  emblem  of  office  and  of 
authority,  suggested  probably,  as  Tylor  intimates,  by  the 
commanding  appearance  of  the  males  among  ruminant 
animals  bearing  horns.  Unworthy  behavior,  followed 
by  a  loss  of  confidence,  furnished  a  sufficient  ground  for 
deposition.  When  a  sachem  or  chief  had  been  deposed 
in  due  form  by  a  council  of  his  gens,  he  ceased  there- 
after to  be  recognized  as  such,  and  became  thenceforth 
a  private  person.  The  council  of  the  tribe  also  had 
power  to  depose  both  sachems  and  chiefs,  without  wait- 
ing for  the  action  of  the  gens,  and  even  against  its 
wishes.  Through  the  existence  and  occasional  exercise 
of  this  power  the  supremacy  of  the  gentiles  ovei  their 
sachem  and  chiefs  was  asserted  and  preserved.  It  also 
reveals  the  democratic  constitution  of  the  gens. 

III.  TJie  obligation  not  to  marry  in  the  gens. 
Although  a  negative  proposition    it   was  fundamental. 

It  was  evidently  a  primary  object  of  the  organization  to 
isolate  a  moietv  of  the  descendants  of  a  supposed  founder, 
and  prevent  their  intermarriage  for  reasons  of  kin.  Wlien 


•)'4  ANCIENT  SOCIETif 

the  gens  came  into  existence  brothers  were  intermarried 
to  each  other's  wives  in  a  group,  and  sisters  to  each 
other's  husbands  in  a  group,  to  which  the  gens  inter- 
posed no  obstacle.  Rut  it  sought  to  exchide  brothers  and 
sisters  from  the  marriage  relation  which  was  effected, 
as  there  are  good  reasons  for  stating,  by  the  prohibition 
in  question.  Had  the  gens  attempted  to  uproot  the  en- 
tire conjugal  system  of  the  period  by  its  direct  action, 
there  is  not  the  slightest  probability  that  it  would  have 
worked  its  way  into  general  establishment.  The  gens, 
originating  probably  in  the  ingenuity  of  a  small  band  of 
savages,  must  soon  have  proved  its  utility  in  the  pro- 
duction of  superior  men.  Its  iiearly  universal  prevalence 
in  the  ancient  world  is  the  highest  evidence  of  the  ad- 
vantages it  conferred,  and  of  its  adaptability  to  human 
wants  in  savagery  and  in  barbarism.  The  Iroquois  still 
adhere  inflexibly  to  the  rule  which  forbids  persons  to 
marry  in  their  own  gens. 

IV.  Mutual  rights  of  viheritance  of  the  property  of 
deceased  mcmhers. 

In  the  Status  of  savagery,  and  in  the  Lower  Status  of 
barbarism,  the  amount  of  property  was  small.  It  con- 
sisted in  the  former  condition  of  personal  effects,  to 
which,  in  the  latter,  were  added  possessory  rights  in 
joint-tenement  houses  and  in  gardens.  The  most  valu- 
able personal  articles  were  buried  with  the  body  of  the 
deceased  owner.  Nevertheless,  the  question  of  inherit- 
ance was  certain  to  arise,  to  increase  in  importance  with 
the  increase  of  property  in  variety  and  amount,  and  to 
result  in  some  settled  rule  of  inheritance.  Accordingly 
we  find  the  principle  established  low  down  in  barbarism, 
and  even  back  of  that  in  savagery,  that  the  property 
should  remain  in  the  gens,  and  be  distributed  among  the 
gentiles  of  the  deceased  owner.  It  was  customary  law 
in  the  Grecian  and  Latin  gentes  in  the  L'pper  Status  of 
barbarism,  and  remained  as  written  law  far  into  civili- 
zation, that  the  property  of  a  deceased  person  should  re- 
main in  the  gens.  Rut  after  the  time  of  Solon  among 
the  Athenians  it  was  limited  to  cases  of  intestacy. 

The  question,  who  should  take  the  property,  has  given 


iROQUOiS  GENS  tS 

tise  to  three  great  and  successive  rules  of  inheritance. 
First,  that  it  should  be  distributed  among  the  gentiles  of 
the  deceased  owner.  This  was  the  rule  in  the  Lower 
Status  of  barbarism,  and  so  far  as  is  known  in  the  Status 
of  savagery.  Second,  that  the  property  should  be  dis- 
tributed among  the  agnatic  kindred  of  the  deceased 
owner,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  remaining  gentiles.  The 
germ  of  this  rule  makes  its  appearance  in  the  Lower  Sta- 
tus of  barbarism,  and  it  probably  became  completely 
established  in  the  Middle  Status.  Third,  that  the  prop- 
erty should  be  inherited  by  the  children  of  the  deceased 
owner,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  remaining  agnates.  This 
became  the  rule  in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism. 

Theoretically,  the  Iroquois  were  under  the  first  rule ; 
but,  practically,  the  efifects  of  a  deceased  person  were  ap- 
propriated by  his  nearest  relations  within  the  gens.  In 
the  case  of  a  male  his  own  brothers  and  sisters  and 
maternal  uncles  divided  his  effects  among  themselves. 
This  practical  limitation  of  the  inheritance  to  the  nearest 
gentile  kin  discloses  the  germ  of  agnatic  inheritance.  In 
the  case  of  a  female  her  property  was  inherited  by  her 
children  and  her  sisters,  to  the  exclusion  of  her  brothers. 
In  every  case  the  property  remained  in  the  gens.  The 
children  of  the  deceased  males  took  nothing  from  their 
father  because  they  belonged  to  a  different  gens.  It  was 
for  the  same  reason  that  the  husband  took  nothing  from 
the  wife,  or  the  wife  from  her  husband.  These  mutual 
right  of  inheritance  strengthened  the  autonomy  of  the 
gens. 

V.  Reciprocal  obligations'  of  help,  defense,  and  redress 
of  injuries. 

In  civilized  society  the  state  assumes  the  protection  of 
persons  and  of  property.  Accustomed  to  look  to  this 
source  for  the  maintenance  of  personal  rights,  there  has 
been  a  corresponding  abatement  of  the  strength  of  the 
bond  of  kin.  But  under  gentile  society  the  individual 
depended  for  security  upon  his  gens.  It  took  the  place 
afterwards  held  by  the  state,  and  possessed  the  requisite 
numbers  to  render  its  guardianship  effective.  Within  its 
membership  the  bond  of  kin  was  a  powerful  element  for 


76  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

mutual  support.  To  wrong  a  person  was  to  wrong  his 
gens;  and  to  support  a  person  was  to  stand  behind  him 
with  the  entire  array  of  his  gentile  kindred. 

In  their  trials  and  difficulties  the  members  of  the  gens 
assisted  each  other.  Two  or  three  illustrations  may  be 
given  from  the  Indian  tribes  at  large.  Speaking  of  the 
Mayas  of  Yucatan,  Herrera  remarks,  that  "when  any 
satisfaction  was  to  be  made  for  damages,  if  he  who  was 
adjudged  to  pay  was  like  to  be  reduced  to  poverty,  the 
kindred  contributed."  ^  By  the  term  kindred,  as  here 
used,  we  are  justified  in  understanding  the  gens.  And 
of  the  Florida  Indians :  "When  a  brother  or  son  dies  the 
people  of  the  house  will  rather  starve  than  seek  any- 
thing to  eat  during  three  months,  but  the  kindred  and 
relations  send  it  all  in."  ^  Persons  who  removed  from 
one  village  to  another  could  not  transfer  their  possessory 
right  to  cultivated  lands  or  to  a  section  of  a  joint-tene- 
ment house  to  a  stranger;  but  must  leave  them  to  his 
gentile  kindred.  Herrera  refers  to  this  usage  among  the 
Indian  tribes  of  Nicaragua;  ''He  that  removed  from  one 
town  to  another  could  not  sell  what  he  had.  but  must 
leave  it  to  his  nearest  relation."  ^  So  much  of  their  prop- 
erty was  held  in  joint  ownership  that  their  plan  of  life 
would  not  admit  of  its  alienation  to  a  person  of  another 
gens.  Practically,  the  right  to  such  property  was  pos- 
sessory, and  when  abandoned  it  reverted  to  the  gens. 
Garcilasso  de  la  Vega  remarks  of  the  tribes  of  the  Pe- 
ruvian Andes,  that  "when  the  commonalty,  or  ordinary 
sort,  married,  the  communities  of  the  people  were  obliged 
to  build  and  provide  them  houses."*  For  communities, 
as  here  used,  we  are  justified  in  understanding  the  gens. 
Herrera  speaking  of  the  same  tribes  observes  that  "this 
variety  of  tongues  proceed  from  the  nations  being  divided 
into  races,  tribes,  or  clans."  ^  Here  the  gentiles  were  re- 
quired to  assist  newly  married  pairs  in  the  construction 
of  their  houses. 


,    "History  of  America,"  Lend,  ed.,  1725,  Stevens'  Trans.,  iv,  171. 

2  lb.,   iv,  34. 

3  "History   of  America,"   Hi,   298. 

4  "Royal    Commentaries,"    Lond.    ed.,    1688,     Rycaut's     Trans., 
p.   107. 

5  Herrera,  Iv,  231. 


IROQUOIS  GENS  Tl 

The  ancient  practice  of  blood  revenge,  which  has  pre- 
vailed so  widely  in  the  tribes  of  mankind,  had  its  birth- 
place in  the  gens.  It  rested  with  this  body  to  avenge 
*he  murder  of  one  of  its  members.  Tribunals  for  the 
trial  of  criminals  and  laws  prescribing  their  punishment, 
came  late  into  existence  in  gentile  society ;  but  they  made 
their  appearance  before  the  institution  of  political  soci- 
ety. On  the  other  hand,  the  crime  of  murder  is  as  old 
as  human  society,  and  its  punishment  by  the  revenge  of 
kinsmen  is  as  old  as  the  crime  itself.  Among  the  Iro- 
quois and  other  Indian  tribes  generally,  the  obligation  to 
avenge  the  murder  of  a  kinsman  was  universally  recog- 
nized.^ 

It  was,  however,  the  duty  of  the  gens  of  the  slayer, 
and  of  the  slain,  to  attempt  an  adjustment  of  the  crime 
before  proceeding  to  extremities.  A  council  of  the  mem- 
bers of  each  gens  was  held  separately,  and  propositions 
were  made  in  behalf  of  the  murderer  for  a  condonation 
of  the  act,  usually  in  the  nature  of  expressions  of  regret 
and  of  presents  of  considerable  value.  If  there  were 
justifying  or  extenuating  circumstances  it  generally  re- 
sulted in  a  composition  ;  but  if  the  gentile  kindred  of  the 
slain  person  were  implacable,  one  or  more  avengers  were 
appointed  by  his  gens  from  among  its  members,  whose 
duty  is  was  to  pursue  the  criminal  until  discovered,  and 
then  to  slay  him  wherever  he  might  be  found.  If  they 
accomplished  the  deed  it  was  no  ground  of  complaint  by 
any  member  of  the  gens  of  the  victim.  Life  having 
answered  for  life  the  demands  of  justice  were  appeased. 

The  same  sentiment  of  fraternity  manifested  itself  in 
other  ways  in  relieving  a  fellov/  gentilis  in  distress,  and 
in  protecting  him  from  injuries. 

VI.     The  right  of  bestowing  names  upon  its  members. 

Among  savage  and  barbarous  tribes  there  is  no  name 
for  the  family.  The  personal  names  of  individuals  of 
the  same  family  do  not  indicate  any  family  connection 

I  "Their  hearts  bu'-n  violently  day  and  night  without  Inter- 
mission till  they  have  shed  blood  for  blood.  They  transmit 
from  father  to  son  the  memory  of  the  loss  of  their  relations, 
or  one  of  their  own  tribe,  or  family,  though  it  was  an  old 
woman."— Adair's  "Hist.  Amer.  Indians,"  Lond.  ed.,  1775,  p.  150. 


IS  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

between  them.  The  family  name  is  no  older  than  civili- 
zation.^ Indian  personal  names,  however,  usually  indi- 
cate the  gens  of  the  individual  to  persons  of  other  gentes 
in  the  same  tribe.  As  a  rule  each  gens  had  names  for 
persons  that  were  its  special  property,  and,  as  such,  could 
not  be  used  by  other  gentes  of  the  same  tribe.  A  gentile 
name  conferred  of  itself  gentile  rights.  These  names 
either  proclaimed  by  their  signification  the  gens  to  which 
they  belonged,  or  were  known  as  such  by  common  repu- 
tation. ^ 

After  the  birth  of  a  child  a  name  was  selected  by  its 
mother  from  those  not  in  use  belonging  to  the  gens,  with 
the  concurrence  of  her  nearest  relatives,  which  was  then 
bestowed  upon  the  infant.  But  the  child  was  not  fully 
christened  until  its  birth  and  name,  together  with  the 
name  and  gens  of  its  mother  and  the  name  of  its  father, 
had  been  announced  at  the  next  ensuing  council  of  the 
tribe.  Upon  the  death  of  a  person  his  name  could  not 
be  used  again  in  the  life-time  of  the  oldest  surviving  son 
without  the  consent  of  the  latter.  ^ 

Two  classes  of  names  were  in  use,  one  adapted  to 
childhood,  and  the  other  to  adult  life,  which  were  ex- 
changed at  the  proper  period  in  the  same  formal  manner ; 
one  being  taken  away,  to  use  their  expression,  and  the 
other  bestowed  in  its  place.  O-wi'-go,  a  canoe  floating 
down  the  stream,  and  Ah-wou'-ne-ont,  hanging  flower; 
are  names  for  girls  among  the  Seneca-Iroquois;  and 
Gd-ne-o-di'-yo,  handsome  lake,  and  D o-ne-ho-ga! -weh 
door-keeper,  are  names  of  adult  males.  At  the  age  of 
sixteen  or  eighteen,  the  first  name  was  taken  away,  usu- 
ally by  a  chief  of  the  gens,  and  one  of  the  second  class 

1  Mommsen's    "History    of    Rome,"    Scrlbner's    ed.,    Dickson's 
Trans.,  i,  49. 

2  One  of  the  twelve   gentes  of  the  Omahas   Is  La'-ta-dK,   the 
Pigeon-Hawk,  which  has,  among  others,  the  following  names: 

Boys'  Names. 
Ah-hise'-na-da,   "Long  Wing." 

Gla-dan'-noh-che,   "Hawk  balancing  Itself  In  the  air." 
Nes-tase'-kH,    "White-Eyed    Bird." 

Girls'  Names. 
Me-ta'-na,  "Bird  singing  at  daylight." 
La-ta-dft'-wln.   "One   of  the   Birds." 
Wa-ta'-na,  "Bird's  Egg." 

3  When  particular   usages   are    named   it  will   be    underntoofl 
they  are  Iroquois  unless  the  contrary  Is  stated. 


IROQUOIS  GENS  7ft 

bestowed  in  its  place.  At  the  next  council  of  the  tribe 
the  change  of  names  was  publicly  announced,  after  which 
the  person,  if  a  male,  assumed  the  duties  of  manhood. 
In  some  Indian  tribes  the  youth  was  required  to  go  out 
upon  the  war-path  and  earn  his  second  name  by  some 
act  of  personal  bravery.  After  a  severe  illness  it  was 
not  uncommon  for  the  person,  from  superstitious  con- 
siderations, to  solicit  and  obtain  a  second  change  of 
name.  It  was  sometimes  done  again  in  extreme  old  age. 
When  a  person  was  elected  a  sachem  or  a  chief  his  name 
was  taken  away,  and  a  new  one  conferred  at  the  time  of 
his  installation.  The  individual  had  no  control  over  the 
question  of  a  change.  It  is  the  prerogative  of  the  female 
relatives  and  of  the  chiefs ;  but  an  adult  person  might 
change  his  name  provided  he  could  induce  a  chief  to 
announce  it  in  council.  A  person  having  the  control  of 
a  particular  name,  as  the  eldest  son  of  that  of  his  de- 
ceased father,  might  lend  it  to  a  friend  in  another  gens; 
but  after  the  death  of  the  person  thus  bearing  it  the  name 
reverted  to  the  gens  to  which  it  belonged. 

Among  the  Shawnees  and  Delawares  the  mother  has 
now  the  right  to  name  her  child  into  any  gens  she  pleases ; 
and  the  name  given  transfers  the  child  to  the  gens  to 
which  the  name  belongs.  But  this  is  a  wide  departure 
from  archaic  usages,  and  exceptional  in  practice.  It 
tends  to  corrupt  and  confound  the  gentile  lineage.  The 
names  now  in  use  among  the  Iroquois  and  among  other 
Indian  tribes  are,  in  the  main,  ancient  names  handed 
down  in  the  gentes  from  time  immemorial. 

The  precautions  taken  with  respect  to  the  use  of  names 
belonging  to  the  gens  sufficiently  prove  the  importance 
attached  to  them,  and  the  gentile  rights  thev  confer. 

Although  this  question  of  personal  names  branches  out 
in  many  direction  it  is  foreign  to  my  purpose  to  do  more 
than  illustrate  such  general  usages  as  reveaf  the  relations 
of  the  members  of  a  gens.  In  familiar  intercourse  and 
in  formal  salutation  the  American  Indians  address  each 
other  by  the  term  of  relationship  the  person  spoken  to 
sustains  to  the  speaker.  When  related  they  salute  by 
kin;  when  not  related   "mv   friend"   is  substituted.     It 


8C  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

would  be  esteemed  an  act  of  rudeness  to  address  an  In- 
dian by  his  personal  name,  or  to  inquire  his  name  directly 
from  himself. 

Our  Saxon  ancestors  had  single  personal  names  down 
to  the  Norman  conquest,  with  none  to  designate  the  fam- 
ily. This  indicates  the  late  appearance  of  the  mono- 
gamian  family  among  them;  and  it  raises  a  presumption 
of  the  existence  in  an  earlier  period  of  a  Saxon  gens. 

\'II.     TJic  right  of  adopting  strangers  into  the  gens. 

Another  distinctive  right  of  the  gens  was  that  of  ad- 
mitting new  members  by  adoption.  Captives  taken  in 
war  were  either  put  to  death,  or  adopted  into  some  gens. 
Women  and  children  taken  prisoners  usually  experienced 
clemency  in  this  form.  Adoption  not  only  conferred 
gentile  rights,  but  also  the  nationality  of  the  tribe.  The 
person  adopting  a  captive  placed  him  or  her  in  the  rela- 
tion of  a  brother  or  sister;  if  a  mother  adopted,  in  that 
of  a  son  or  daughter;  and  ever  afterwards  treated  the 
person  in  all  respects  as  though  born  in  that  relation. 
Slavery,  which  in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism  became 
the  fate  of  the  captive,  was  unknown  among  tribes  in  the 
Lower  Status  in  the  aboriginal  period.  The  gauntlet 
also  had  some  connection  with  adoption,  since  the  person 
who  succeeded,  through  hardihood  or  favoritism,  in  run- 
ning through  the  lines  in  safety  was  entitled  to  this  re- 
ward. Captives  when  adopted  were  often  assigned  in 
the  family  the  places  of  deceased  persons  slain  in  battle, 
in  order  to  fill  up  the  broken  ranks  of  relatives.  A  de- 
clining gens  might  replenish  its  numbers,  through  adop- 
tion, although  such  instances  are  rare.  At  one  time  the 
Hawk  gens  of  the  Senecas  were  reduced  to  a  small  num- 
ber of  persons,  and  its  extinction  became  imminent.  To 
save  the  gens  a  number  of  persons  from  the  Wolf  gens 
by  mutual  consent  were  transferred  in  a  body  by  adop- 
tion to  that  of  the  Hawk.  The  right  to  adopt  seems  to 
be  left  to  the  discretion,  of  each  gens. 

Among  the  Iroquois  the  ceremony    of    adoption  was 


IROQUOIS  GENS  8l 

performed  at  a  public  council  of  the  tribe,  which  turned 
it  practically  into  a  religious  rite.  * 

VIII.     Religious  rites  in  the  gens.     Query. 

Among  the  Grecian  and  Latin  tribes  these  rites  held 
a  conspicuous  position.  The  highest  polytheistic  form 
of  religion  which  had  then  appeared  seems  to  have  sprung 
from  the  gentes  in  which  religious  rites  were  constantly 
maintained.  Some  of  them,  from  the  sanctity  they  were 
supposed  to  possess,  were  nationalized.  In  some  cities 
the  office  of  high  priest  of  certain  divinities  was  heredit- 
ary in  a  particular  gens.  ^  The  gens  became  the  natural 
centre  of  religious  growth  and  the  birthplace  of  religious 
ceremonies. 

But  the  Indian  tribes,  although  they  had  a  polytheistic 
system,  not  much  unlike  that  from  which  the  Grecian  and 
Roman  must  have  sprung,  had  not  attained  that  religious 
development  which  was  so  strongly  impressed  upon  the 
gentes  of  the  latter  tribes.  It  can  scarcely  be  said  any 
Indian  gens  had  special  religious  rites;  and  yet  their 
religious  worship  had  a  more  or  less  direct  connection 
with  the  gentes.  It  was  here  that  religious  ideas  would 
naturally  germinate  and  that  forms  of  worship  would  be 
instituted.  But  they  would  expand  from  the  gens  over 
the  tribe,  rather  than  remain  special  to  the  gens.  Ac- 
cordingly we  find  among  the  Iroquois  six  annual  religi- 
ous festivals,  C Maple,  Planting.  Berry.  Green-Corn.  Har- 
v-est,  and  Xew  Years  Festivals)^  which  were  common  to 
all  the  gentes  united  in  a  tribe,  anrl  which  were  observed 
at  stated  seasons  of  the  year. 

Each  gens  furnished    a    mmibcr  of  "Keepers  of  the 

I  After  the  people  had  assembled  at  the  councU  house  one  of 
the  chiefs  made  an  address  giving  some  account  of  the  person, 
the  reason  for  his  adoption,  tlie  name  and  gens  of  the  person 
adopting,  and  the  name  bestowed  upon  the  novitiate.  Two 
chiefs  taking  the  person  by  the  arms  then  marched  with  him 
through  the  council  house*  and  back,  chanting  the  song  of 
adoption.  To  this  the  people  responded  In  musical  chorus  at 
the  end  of  each  verse.  The  march  continued  until  the  verses 
were  ended,  which  required  three  rounds.  T\'lth  this  the  cere- 
mony concluded.  Americans  are  sometimrg  adopted  as  a  com- 
pliment. It  fell  to  my  lot  some  years  ago  to  be  thus  adopteil 
into  the  Hawk  gers  of  the  Senecas,  when  this  ceremony  wafl 
repeated. 

»   Grote's   "Hist,   of  Greece,"   i,   194. 

^  "League   of   the    Iroquois,"   p.    182. 


82  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

Faith,"  both  male  and  female,  who  together  were  charged 
with  the  celebration  of  these  festivals.^  The  number  ad- 
vanced to  this  office  by  each  was  regarded  as  evidence 
of  the  fidelity  of  the  gens  to  religion.  They  designated 
the  days  for  holding  the  festivals,  made  the  necessary 
arrangements  for  the  celebration,  and  conducted  the  cer- 
emonies in  conjunction  with  the  sachems  and  chiefs  of 
the  tribe,  who  were,  ex  officio,  "Keepers  of  the  Faith." 
With  no  official  head,  and  none  of  the  marks  of  a  priest- 
hood, their  functions  were  equal.  The  female  "Keepers 
of  the  Faith"  were  more  especially  charged  with  the 
preparation  of  the  feast,  which  was  provided  at  all  coun- 
cils at  the  close  of  each  day  for  all  persons  in  attendance. 
It  was  a  dinner  in  common.  The  religious  rites  apper- 
taining to  these  festivals,  which  have  been  described  in 
a  previous  work,'^  need  not  be  considered  further  than  to 
remark,  that  their  worship  was  one  of  thanksgiving,  with 
invocations  to  the  Great  Spirit,  and  to  the  Lesser  Spirits 
to  continue  to  them  the  blessings  of  life. 

With  the  progress  of  mankind  out  of  the  Lower  into 
the  Middle,  and  more  especially  out  of  the  latter  into  the 
Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  the  gens  became  more  the 
centre  of  religious  influence  and  the  source  of  religious 
development.  We  have  only  the  grosser  part  of  the 
Aztec  religious  system ;  but  in  addition  to  national  gods, 
there  seem  to  have  been  other  gods,  belonging  to  smaller 
divisions  of  the  people  than  the  phratries.  The  existence 
of  an  Aztec  ritual  and  priesthood  would  lead  us  to  ex- 
pect among  them  a  closer  connection  of  religious  rites 
with  the  gentes  than  is  found  among  the  Iroquois :  but 

I  The  "Keepers  of  the  Faith"  were  about  as  numerou.s  as  the 
chiefs,  and  were  selected  by  the  -n'ise-men  and  matrons  of  each 
gens.  After  their  selection  they  were  raised  up  by  a  council 
of  the  tribe  with  ceremonies  adapted  to  the  occasion.  Their 
names  were  taken  away  and  new  ones  belonging  to  this  class 
bestowed  in  their  place.  Men  and  women  in  about  equal  num- 
bers were  chosen.  They  were  censors  of  the  people,  with  power 
to  report  the  evil  deeds  of  persons  to  the  council.  Jt  was  the 
duty  of  Individuals  selected  to  accept  the  offlce;  hut  after  a 
reasonable  service  each  might  relinquish  it.  whi^h  was  done 
by  dropping  his  name  as  a  Keeper  of  the  Faith  s»rtd  resuming 
Ills  former  name. 

a   "League  of  the  Iroquois,"  p.   182. 


IROQUOIS  GENS  83 

their  religious  beliefs  and  observances  are  under  the  same 
cloud  of  obscurity  as  their  social:  organization. 

IX.    A  common  burial  place. 

An  ancient  but  not  exclusive  mode  of  burial  was  by 
scaffolding  the  body  until  the  flesh  had  wasted,  after 
which  the  bones  were  collected  and  preserved  in  bark 
barrels  in  a  house  constructed  for  their  reception.  Those 
belonging  to  the  same  gens  were  usually  placed  in  the 
same  house.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Cyrus  Byington  found  these 
practices  among  the  Choctas  in  1827;  and  Adair  mentions 
usages  among  tiie  Cherokees  substantially  the  same.  "I 
saw  three  of  them,"  he  remarks,  "in  one  of  their  towns 
pretty  near  each  other;  *  *  Each  house  contained  the 
bones  of  one  tribe  separately,  with  the  hieroglyphical 
figures  of  each  family  [gens]  on  each  of  the  oddshaped 
arks.  They  reckoned  it  irreligious  to  mix  the  bones  of 
a  relative  with  those  of  a  stranger,  as  bone  of  bone  and 
flesh  of  flesh  should  always  be  jointed  together."^  The 
Iroquois  in  ancient  times  used  scaffolds  and  preserved 
the  bones  of  deceased  relatives  in  bark  barrels,  often 
keeping  them  in  the  house  they  occupied.  They  also 
buried  in  the  ground.  In  the  latter  case  those  of  the 
same  gens  were  not  always  buried  locally  together  un- 
less they  had  a  common  cemetery  for  the  village.  The 
late  Rev.  Ashur  Wright,  so  long  a  missionary  among  the 
Senecas,  and  a  noble  specimen  of  the  American  mission- 
ary', wrote  to  the  author  as  follows;  'T  find  no  trace  of 
the  influence  of  clanship  in  the  burial  places  of  the  dead. 
I  believe  that  they  buried  promiscuously.  However,  they 
sav  that  formerly  the  members  of  the  different  clans 
more  frequently  resided  together  than  they  do  at  the 
present  time.  As  one  family  they  were  more  under  the 
influence  of  family  feeling,  and  had  less  of  individual 
interest.  Hence,  it  might  occasionally  happen  that  a 
large  proportion  of  the  dead  in  some  partiular  burying 
place  might  be  of  the  same  clan."  Mr.  Wright  is  un- 
doubtedly correct  that  in  a  particular  cemetery  members 
of  all  the  gentes  established  in  a  village  would  be  buried ; 

I   "History    of    the    American    Indians."    p.    183. 


84  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

but  they  might  keep  those  of  the  same  gens  locally  to- 
gether. An  illustration  in  point  is  now  found  at  the 
Tuscarora  reservation  near  Lewiston,  where  the  tribe 
has  one  common  cemetery,  and  where  individuals  of  the 
same  gens  are  buried  in  a  row  by  themselves.  One  row 
is  composed  of  the  graves  of  the  deceased  members  of 
the  Beaver  gens,  two  rows  of  the  members  of  the  Bear 
gens,  one  row  of  the  Gray  Wolf,  one  of  the  Great  Turtle, 
and  so  on  to  the  number  of  eight  rows.  Husband  and 
wife  are  separated  from  each  other  and  buried  in  dif- 
ferent rows ;  fathers  and  their  children  the  same ;  but 
mothers  and  their  children  and  brothers  and  sisters  are 
found  in  the  same  row.  It  shows  the  power  of  gentile 
feeling,!  and  the  quickness  with  which  ancient  usages  are 
reverted  to  under  favorable  conditions ;  for  the  Tus- 
caroras  are  now  christianized  without  surrendering  the 
practice.  An  Onondaga  Indian  informed  the  writer  that 
the  same  mode  of  burial  by  gentes  now  prevailed  at  the 
Onondaga  and  Oneida  cemeteries.  While  this  usage, 
perhaps,  cannot  be  declared  general  among  the  Indian 
tribes,  there  was  undoubtedly  in  ancient  times  a  tendency 
to,  and  preference  for  this  mode  of  burial. 

Among  the  Iroquois,  and  what  is  true  of  them  is  gen- 
erally true  of  other  Indian  tribes  in  the  same  status  of 
advancement,  all  the  members  of  the  gens  are  mourners 
at  the  funeral  of  a  deceased  gentilis.  The  addresses  at 
the  funeral,  the  preparation  of  the  grave,  and  the  burial 
of  the  body  were  performed  by  members  of  other  gentes. 

The  Village  Indians  of  Mexico  and  Central  America 
practiced  a  slovenly  cremation,  as  well  as  scaffolding, 
and  burying  in  the  ground.  The  former  was  confined  to 
chiefs  and  prominent  men. 

X.     A  council  of  the  gens. 

The  council  was  the  great  feature  of  ancient  society, 
Asiatic,  European  and  American,  from  the  institution  of 
the  gens  in  savagery  to  civilization.  It  was  the  instru- 
ment of  government  as  well  as  the  supreme  authority 
over  the  gens,  the  tribe,  and  the  confederacy.  Ordinary 
aflFairs  were  adjusted  by  the  chiefs;  but  those  of  general 
interest  were  submitted  to  the  determination  of  a  coun- 


IROQUOIS  GENS  85 

cil.  As  the  council  sprang  from  the  gentile  organization 
the  two  institutions  have  come  down  together  through 
the  ages.  The  Council  of  Chiefs  represents  the  ancient 
method  of  evolving  the  wisdom  of  mankind  and  applying 
it  to  human  affairs.  Its  history,  gentile,  tribal,  and  con- 
federate, would  express  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  gov- 
ernment in  its  whole  development,  until  political  society 
supervened  into  which  the  council,  changed  into  a  senate, 
was  transmitted. 

The  simplest  and  lowest  form  of  the  council  was  that 
of  the  gens.  It  was  a  democratic  assembly  because 
every  adult  male  and  female  member  had  a  voice  upon 
all  questions  brought  before  it.  It  elected  and  deposed 
its  sachem  and  chiefs,  it  elected  Keepers  of  the  Faith, 
it  condoned  or  avenged  the  murder  of  a  gentiles,  and  it 
adopted  persons  into  the  gens.  It  was  the  germ  of  the 
higher  council  of  the  tribe,  and  of  that  still  higher  of  the 
confederacy,  each  of  which  was  composed  exclusively  of 
chiefs  as  representatives  of  the  gentes. 

Such  werei  the  rights,  privileges  and  obligations  of  the 
members  of  an  Iroquois  gens ;  and  such  were  those  of 
the  members  of  the  gentes  of  the  Indian  tribes  generally, 
as  far  as  the  investigation  has  been  carried.  When  the 
gentes  of  the  Grecian  and  Latin  tribes  are  considered, 
the  same  rights,  privileges  and  obligations  will  be  found 
to  exist,  with  the  exception  of  the  I,  II,  and  VI ;  and 
with  respect  to  these  their  ancient  existence  is  probable 
though  the  proof  is  not  perhaps  attainable. 

All  the  members  of  an  Iroquois  gens  were  personally 
free,  and  they  were  bound  to  defend  each  other's  free- 
dom ;  they  were  equal  in  privileges  and  in  personal 
rights,  the  sachem  and  chiefs  claiming  no  superiority  ; 
and  they  were  a  brotherhood  bound  together  by  the  ties 
of  kin.  Liberty,  equality,  and  fraternity,  though  never 
formulated,  were  cardinal  principles  of  the  gens.  These 
facts  are  material,  because  the  gens  was  the  unit  of  a 
social  and  governmental  system,  the  foundation  upon 
which  Indian  society  was  organized.  A  structure  com- 
posed of  such  units  would  of  necessity  bear  the  impress 
of  their  character,  for  as  the  unit  so  the  compound.     It 


86  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

serves  to  explain  that  sense  of  independence  and  per- 
sonal dignity  universally  an  attribute  of  Indian  character. 

Thus  substantial  and  important  in  the  social  system 
was  the  gens  as  it  anciently  existed  among  the  American 
aborigines,  and  as  it  still  exists  in  full  vitality  in  many 
Indian  tribes.  It  was  the  basis  of  the  phratry,  of  the 
tribe,  and  the  confederacy  of  tribes.  Its  functions  might 
have  been  presented  more  elaborately  in  several  particu- 
lars ;  but  sufficient  has  been  given  to  show  its  permanent 
and  durable  character. 

At  the  epoch  of  European  discovery  the  American 
Indian  tribes  generally  were  organized  in  gentes,  with 
descent  in  the  female  line.  In  some  tribes,  as  among  the 
Dakotas,  the  gentes  had  fallen  out ;  in  others,  as  among 
the  Ojibwas,  the  Omahas,  and  the  Mayas  of  Yucatan, 
descent  had  been  changed  from  the  female  to  the  male 
line.  Throughout  aboriginal  America  the  gens  took  its 
name  from  some  animal,  or  inanimate  object,  and  never 
from  a  person.  In  this  early  condition  of  society,  the 
individuality  of  persons  was  lost  in  the  gens.  It  is  at 
least  presumable  that  the  gentes  of  the  Grecian  and  Latin 
tribes  were  so  named  at  some  anterior  period ;  but  when 
they  first  came  under  historical  notice,  they  were  named 
after  persons.  In  some  of  the  tribes,  as  the  Moqui  Vil- 
lage Indians  of  New  Mexico,  the  members  of  the  gens 
claimed  their  descent  from  the  animal  whose  name  they 
bore — their  remote  ancestors  having  been  transformed 
by  the  Great  Spirit  from  the  animal  into  the  human 
form.  The  Crane  gens  of  the  Ojibwas  have  a  similar 
legend.  In  some  tribes  the  members  of  a  gens  will  not 
eat  the  animal  whose  name  they  bear,  in  which  they  are 
doubtless  influenced  by  this  consideration. 

With  respect  to  the  number  of  persons  in  a  gens  it 
varied  with  the  number  of  the  gentes,  and  with  the  pros- 
perity or  decadence  of  the  tribe.  Three  thousand  Sene- 
cas  divided  equally  among  eight  gentes  would  give  an 
average  of  three  hundred  and  seventy-five  i)ersons  to  a 
gens.  Fifteen  thousand  Ojibwas  divided  equally  among 
twenty-three  gentes  would  give  six  hundred  and  fifty 
persons  to  a  gens.     The  Cherokees  would  average  more 


IROQUOIS  GENS  87 

than  a  thousand  to  a  gens.  In  the  present  condition  of 
the  principal  Indian  tribes  the  number  of  persons  in  each 
gens  would  range  from  one'  hundred  to  a  thousand. 

One  of  the  oldest  and  most  widely  prevalent  institu- 
tions of  mankind,  the  gentes  have  been  closely  identi- 
fied with  human  progress  upon  which  they  have  exer- 
cised a  powerful  influence.  They  have  been  found  in 
tribes  in  the  Status  of  savagery,  in  the  Lower,  in  the 
Middle,  and  in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism  on  differ- 
ent continents,  and  in  full  vitality  in  the  Grecian  and 
Latin  tribes  after  civilization  had  commenced.  Every 
family  of  mankind,  except  the  Polynesian,  seems  to  have 
come  under  the  gentile  organization,  and  to  have  been 
indebted  to  it  for  preservation,  and  for  the  means  of 
progress.  It  finds  its  only  parallel  in  length  of  duration 
in  systems  of  consanguinity,  which,  springing  up  at  a  still 
earlier  period,  have  remained  to  the  present  time,  al- 
though the  marriage  usages  in  which  they  originated 
have  long  since  disappeared. 

From  its  early  institution,  and  from  its  maintenance 
through  such  immense  stretches  of  time,  the  peculiar 
adaption  of  the  gentile  organization  to  mankind,  while  in 
a  savage  and  in  a  barbarous  state,  must  be  regarded  as 
abundantly  demonstrated. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  IROQUOIS  PHRATRY 

The  phratry  is  a  brotherhood,  as  the  term  imports,  and 
3.  natural  growth  from  the  organization  into  gentes.  It 
is  an  organic  union  or  association  of  two  or  more  gentes 
of  the  same  tribe  for  certain  common  objects.  These 
gentes  were  usually  such  as  had  been  formed  by  the 
segmentation  of  an  original  gens. 

Among  the  Grecian  tribes,  where  the  phratric  organi- 
zation was  nearly  as  constant  as  the  g'ens,  it  became  a 
very  conspicuous  institution.  Each  of  the  four  tribes 
of  the  Athenians  was  organized  in  three  phratries,  each 
composed  of  thirty  gentes,  making  a  total  of  twelve 
phratries  and  three  hundred  and  sixty  gentes.  Such 
precise  numerical  uniformity  in  the  composition  of  each 
phratry  and  tribe  could  not  have  resulted  from  the  sub- 
division of  gentes  through  natural  processes.  It  must 
have  been  produced,  as  Mr.  Grote  suggests,  by  legis- 
lative procurement  in  the  interests  of  a  symmetrical  or- 
ganization. All  the  gentes  of  a  tribe,  as  a  rule,  were  of 
common  descent  and  bore  a  common  tribal  name,  conse- 
quently it  would  not  require  severe  constraint  to  unite 
the  specified  number  in  each  phratry,  and  to  form  the 
specified  number  of  phratries  in  each  tribe.  But  the 
phratric  organization  had  a  natural  foundation  in  the 
immediate  kinship  of  certain  gentes  as  subdivisions  of  an 
original  gens,  which  undoubtedly  was  the  basis  on  which 
the  Grecian  phratry  was  originally  formed.  The  incor- 
poration of  alien  gentes,  and  transfers  by  consent  or 
constraint,  would  explain  the  numerical  adjustment  of 
the  gentes  and  phratries  in  the  Athenian  tribes. 

88 


IROQUOIS  PHRATRT  g^ 

The  Roman  curia  was  the  analogue  of  the  Grecian 
phratry.  It  is  constantly  mentioned  by  Dionysius  as  a 
phratry.  ^  There  were  ten  gentes  in  each  ctiria,  and  ten 
curiae  in  each  of  the  three  Roman  tribes,  making  thirty 
curiae  and  three  hundred  gentes  of  the  Romans.  The 
functions  of  the  Roman  curia  are  much  better  known 
than  those  of  the  Grecian  phratry,  and  were  higher  in 
degree  because  the  curia  entered  directly  into  the  func- 
tions of  government.  The  assembly  of  the  gentes  (com- 
itia  curiata)  voted  by  curiae,  each  having  one  collective 
vote.  This  assembly  was  the  sovereign  power  of  the 
Roman  People  down  to  the  time  of  Servius  Tullius. 

Among  the  functions  of  the  Grecian  phratry  was  the 
observance  of  special  religious  rites,  the  condonation  or 
revenge  of  the  murder  of  a  phrator,  and  the  purifica- 
tion of  a  murderer  after  he  had  escaped  the  penalty  of 
his  crime  preparatory  to  his  restoration  to  society.^  At 
a  later  period  among  the  Athenians — for  the  phratry  at 
Athens  survived  the  institution  of  political  society  under 
Cleisthenes — it  looked  after  the  registration  of  citizens, 
thus  becoming  the  guardian  of  descents  and  of  the  evi- 
dence of  citizenship.  The  wife  upon  her  marriage  was 
enrolled  in  the  phratry  of  her  husband,  and  the  children 
of  the  mariage  were  enrolled  in  the  gens  and  phratry  of 
their  father.  It  was  also  the  duty  of  this  organization 
to  prosecute  the  murderer  of  a  phrator  in  the  courts  of 
justice.  These  are  among  its  known  objects  and  func- 
tions in  the  earlier  and  later  periods.  Were  all  the  partic- 
ulars fully  ascertained,  the  phratry  would  probably 
manifest  itself  in  connection  with  the  common  tables, 
the  public  games,  the  funerals  of  distinguished  men,  the 
earliest  army  organization,  and  the  proceedings  of  coun- 
cils, as  well  as  in  the  observance  of  religious  rites  and 
in  the  guardianship  of  social  privileges. 

The  phratry  existed  in  a  large  number  of  the  te-ibes 
of  the  American  aborigines,  where  it  is  seen  to  arise  by 
natural  growth,  and  to  stand  as  the  second  member  of 

I   —"Dionysius,"  lib.  II,  cap.  vH;  and  vld.  lib.  II,  c.  xUl. 
a  That  purification  was  performed  by  the  phratry  Is  Intimated 
by  .(Eschylus:     "Eumenldes,"  65C. 


90  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

the  organic  series,  as  among  the  Grecian  and  Latin  tribes. 
It  did  not  possess  original  governmental  functions,  as 
the  gens,  tribe  and  confederacy  possessed  them ;  but  it 
was  endowed  with  certain  useful  powers  in  the  social 
system,  from  the  necessity  for  some  organization  larger 
than  a  gens  and  smaller  than  a  tribe,  and  es,pecially  when 
the  tribe  was  large.  The  same  institution  in  essential 
features  and  in  character,  it  presents  the  organization 
in  its  archaic  form  and  with  its  archaic  functions.  A 
knowledge  of  the  Indian  phratry  is  necessary  to  an  in- 
telligent understanding  of  the  Grecian  and  the  Roman. 

The  eight  gentes  of  the  Seneca-Iroquois  tribe  were 
reintegrated  in  two  phratries  as  follows : 

First  Phratry. 

Gentes — i.  Bear.     2.  Wolf.     3.  Beaver.     4.  Turtle. 
Second  Phratry. 

Gentes — 5.  Deer.     6.  Snipe.     7.  Heron.     8.  Hawk. 

Each  phratry  (De-a-non-da'-yoh)  is  a  brotherhood 
as  this  term  also  imports.  The  gentes  in  the  same  phra- 
try are  brother  gentes  to  each  other,  and  cousin  gentes 
to  those  of  the  other  phratry.  They  are  equal  in  grade, 
character  and  privileges.  It  is  a  common  practice  of  the 
Senecas  to  call  the  gentes  of  their  own  phratry  brother 
gentes,  and  those  of  the  other  phratry  their  cousin  gen- 
tes, when  they  mention  them  in  their  relation  to  the  phra- 
tries. Originally  marriage  was  not  allowed  between  the 
members  of  the  same  phratry ;  but  the  members  of  either 
could  marry  into  any  gens  of  the  other.  This  prohibi- 
tion tends  to  show  that  gentes  of  each  phratry  were  sub- 
divisions of  an  original  gens,  and  therefore  the  prohibi- 
tion against  marrying  into  a  person's  own  gens  had  fol- 
lowed to  its  subdivisions.  This  restriction,  however, 
was  long  since  removed,  except  with  respect  to  the  gens 
of  the  individual.  A  tradition  of  the  Senecas  afifirms 
that  the  Bear  and  the  Deer  were  the  original  gentes,  of 
which  the  others  were  subdivisions.  It  is  thus  seen  that 
the  phratry  had  a  natural  foundation  in  the  kinship  of 
the  gentes  of  which  it  was  composed.  After  their  sub- 
division  from  increase  of  numbers  there  was  a  natural 


IROQUOIS  PHRATRY  91 

tendency  to  their  reunion  in  a  higher  organization  for 
objects  'common  to  them  all.  The  same  gentes  are  not 
constant  in  a  phratry  indehnitely,  as  will  appear  when  the 
composition  of  the  phratries  in  the  remaining  Iroquois 
tribes  is  considered.  Transfers  of  particular  gentes  from 
one  phratry  to  the  other  must  have  occurred  when  the 
equilibrium  in  their  respective  numbers  was  disturbed. 
It  is  important  to  know  the  simple  manner  in  which  this 
organization  springs  up,  and  the  facility  with  which  it  is 
managed,  as  a  part  of  the  social  system  of  ancient  so- 
ciety. With  the  increase  of  numbers  in  a  gens,  followed 
by  local  separation  of  its  members,  segmentation  occur- 
red, and  the  seceding  portion  adopted  a  new  gentile 
name.  But  a  tradition  of  their  former  unity  would  re- 
main, and  become  the  basis  of  their  reorganization  in  a 
phratry. 

In  like  manner  the  Cayuga-Iroquois  have  eight  gentes 
in  two  phratries ;  but  these  gentes  are  not  divided  equally 
between  them.    They  are  the  following : 

First  Phratry. 

Gentes. —  i.  Bear.     2.  Wolf.  3.  Turtle.     4.  Snipe.  5.  Eel. 

Second  Phratry. 

Gentes. — 6.  Deer.     7.  Beaver.     8.  Hawk. 

Seven  of  these  gentes  are  the  same  as  those  of  the 
Senecas ;  but  the  Heron  gens  has  disappeared,  and  the 
Eel  takes  its  place,  but  transferred  to  the  opposite  phra- 
try. The  Beaver  and  the  Turtle  gentes  also  have  ex- 
changed phratries.  The  Cayugas  style  the  gentes  of  the 
same  phratry  brother  gentes  to  each  other,  and  those  of 
the  opposite  phratry  their  cousin  gentes. 

The  Onondaga-Iroquois    have    the    same    number  of 
gentes,  but  two  of  them  dififer  in  name  from  those  of  the 
Senecas.  They  are  organized  in  two  phratries  as  follows : 
First  Phratry. 

Gentes. — l.  Wolf.     2.  Turtle.      3.  Snipe.      4.  Beaver. 

5.  Ball. 
Second  Phratry. 
Gentes. — 6.  Deer.     7.  Eel,    8,  Bear. 

Here  again  the  composition  of  the  phratries  is  differ- 
ent from  that  of  the  Senecas,     Three  of  the  gentes  in  the 


02  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

first  phratry  are  the  same  in  each ;  but  the  Bear  gens 
has  been  transferred  to  the  opposite  phratry  and  is  now 
found  with  the  Deer.  The  division  of  gentes  is  also 
unequal,  as  among  the  Cayugas.  The  gentes  in  the  same 
phratry  are  called  brother  gentes  to  each  other,  and  those 
in  the  other  their  cousin  gentes.  While  the  Onondagas 
have  no  Hawk,  the  Senecas  have  no  Eel  gens ;  but  the 
members  of  the  two  fraternize  when  they  meet,  claiming 
that  there  is  a  connection  between  them. 

The  Mohawks  and  Oneidas  have  but  three  gentes,  the 
Bear,  the  Wolf,  and  the  Turtle,  and  no  phratries.  When 
the  confederacy  was  formed,  seven  of  the  eight  Seneca 
gentes  existed  in  the  several  tribes  as  is  shown  by  the 
establishment  of  sachemships  in  them ;  but  the  Mohawks 
and  Oneidas  then  had  only  the  three  named.  It  shows 
that  they  had  then  lost  an  entire  phratry,  and  one  gens 
of  that  remaining,  if  it  is  assumed  that  the  original 
tribes  were  once  composed  of  the  same  gentes.  When 
a  tribe  organized  in  gentes  and  phratries  subdivides,  it 
might  occur  on  the  line  of  the  phratric  organization. 
Although  the  members  of  a  tribe  are  intermingled 
throughout  by  marriage,  each  gens  in  a  phratry  is  com- 
posed of  females  with  their  children  and  descendants, 
through  females,  who  formed  the  body  of  the  phratry. 
They  would  incline  at  least  to  remain  locally  together, 
and  thus  might  become  detached  in  a  body.  The  male 
members  of  the  gens  married  to  women  of  other  gentes 
and  remaining  with  their  wives  would  not  aflfect  the  gens 
since  the  children  of  the  males  do  not  belong  to  its  con- 
nection. If  the  minute  history  of  the  Indian  tribes  is 
ever  recovered  it  must  be  sought  through  the  gentes  and 
phratries,  which  can  be  followed  from  tribe  to  tribe.  In 
such  an  investigation  it  will  deserve  attention  whether 
tribes  ever  disintegrated  by  phratries.  It  is  at  least  im- 
probable. 

The  Tuscarora-Iroquois  became  detached  from  the 
main  stock  at  some  unknown  period  in  the  past,  and  in- 
habited the  Neuse  river  region  in  North  Carolina  at  the 
time  of  their  discovery.  About  A.  D.  171 2  they  were 
forced  out  of  this  area,  whereupon  they  removed  to  the 


IROQUOIS  PHRATRT  9'i. 

country  of  the  Iroquois  and  were  admitted  into  the  con- 
federacy as  a  sixth  member.  They  have  eight  gentes 
organized  in  two  phratries,  as  follows : 

First  Phratry. 
Gentes. —  i.  Bear.    2.  Beaver.     3.  Great  Turtle.    4.  Eel, 

Second  Phratry. 

Gentes.     5.  Gray    ^^'olf.       6.  Yellow    Wolf.      7.    Little 

Turtle.     8.  Snipe. 

They  have  six  gentes  in  common  with  the  Cayugas 
and  Onondagas,  five  in  common  with  the  Senecas,  and 
three  in  common  with  the  ]\lohawks  and  Oneidas.  The 
Deer  gens,  which  they  once  possessed,  became  extinct 
in  modern  times.  It  will  be  noticed,  also,  that  the  Wolf 
gens  is  now  divided  into  two,  the  Gray  and  the  Yellow, 
and  the  Turtle  into  two,  the  Great  and  Little.  Three  of 
the  gentes  in  the  first  phratry  are  the  same  with  three 
in  the  first  phratry  of  the  Senecas  and  Cayugas,  witli  the 
exception  that  the  Wolf  gens  is  double.  As  several  hun- 
dred years  elapsed  between  the  separation  of  the  Tus- 
caroras  from  their  congeners  and  their  return,  it  affords 
some  evidence  of  permanence  in  the  existence  of  a  gens. 
The  gentes  in  the  same  phratry  are  called  brother  gen- 
tes to  each  other,  and  those  in  the  other  phratry  their 
cousin  gentes,  as  among  the  other  tribes. 

From  the  differences  in  the  composition  of  the  phra- 
tries in  the  several  tribes  it  seems  probable  that  the  phra- 
tries are  modified  in  their  gentes  at  intervals  of  time  to 
meet  changes  of  condition.  Some  gentes  prosper  and 
increase  in  numbers,  while  others  through  calamities  de- 
cline, and  others  become  extinct ;  so  that  transfers  of  gen- 
tes from  one  phratry  to  another  were  found  necessarv 
to  preserve  some  degree  of  equality  in  the  number  of 
phrators  in  each.  The  phratric  organization  has  existed 
among  the  Iroquois  from  time  immemorial.  It  is  proba- 
bly older  than  the  confederacy  which  was  established 
more  than  four  centuries  ago.  The  amount  of  differ- 
ence in  their  composition,  as  to  the  gentes  they  contain, 
represents  the  vicissitudes  through  which  each  tribe  has 
passed  in  the  interval.     In  any  view  of  the  matter  it  is 


94  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

small,  tending-  to  illustrate  the  permanence  of  the  phra- 
try  as  well  as  the  gens. 

The  Iroquois  tribes  had  a  total  of  thirty-eight  gentes, 
and  in  four  of  the  tribes  a  total  of  eight  phratries. 

Jn  its  objects  and  uses  the  Iroquois  phratry  falls  be- 
low the  Grecian,  as  would  be  supposed,  although  our 
knowledge  of  the  functions  of  the  latter  is  limited ;  and 
below  what  is  known  of  the  uses  of  the  phratry  among 
the  Roman  tribes.  In  comparing  the  latter  with  the 
former  we  pass  backward  through  two  ethnical  periods, 
and  into  a  very  different  condition  of  society.  The  dif- 
ference is  in  the  degree  of  progress,  and  not  in  kind ;  for 
we  have  the  same  institution  in  each  race,  derived  from 
the  same  or  a  similar  germ,  and  preserved  by  each 
through  immense  periods  of  time  as  a  part  of  a  social 
system.  Gentile  society  remained  of  necessity  among  the 
Grecian  and  Roman  tribes  until  political  society  super- 
vened ;  and  it  remained  among  the  Iroquois  tribes  be- 
cause they  were  still  two  ethnical  periods  below  civili- 
zation. Every  fact,  therefore,  in  relation  to  the  func- 
tions and  uses  of  the  Indian  phratry  is  important,  be- 
cause it  tends  to  illustrate  the  archaic  character  of  an 
institution  which  became  so  influential  in  a  more  devel- 
oped condition  of  society. 

The  phratr\-,  among  the  Iroquois,  was  partly  for  so- 
cial and  partly  for  religious  objects.  Its  functions  and 
uses  can  be  best  shown  by  practical  illustrations.  We 
begin  with  the  lowest,  with  games,  which  were  of  com- 
mon occurrence  at  tribal  and  confederate  councils.  In 
the  ball  game,  for  exami)le,  among  the  Senecas,  thev 
play  by  phratries,  one  against  the  other;  and  they  bet 
against  each  other  upon  the  result  of  the  game.  Each 
phratry  puts  forward  its  best  pla}-ers.  usually  from  six 
to  ten  on  a  side,  and  the  members  of  each  i)hratry  as- 
semble together  but  upon  opposite  sides  of  the  field  in 
which  the  game  is  played.  Before  it  commences,  articles 
of  personal  property  are  hazarded  upon  the  result  by 
members  of  the  opposite  phratries.  These  are  deposited 
with  keepers  to  abide  the  event.  The  game  is  jilayed 
with  spirit  and  enthusiasm,  and  is  an  exciting  spectacle. 


IROQUOIS  PHRATRT  95 

The  members  of  each  phratr}-,  from  their  opposite  sta- 
tions, watch  the  game  with  eagerness,  and  cheer  their 
respective  players  at  every  successful  turn  of  the  game.^ 

In  many  ways  the  phratric  organization  manifested  it- 
self. At  a  council  of  the  tribe  the  sachems  and  chiefs 
in  each  phratry  usually  seated  themselves  on  opposite 
sides  of  an  imaginary  council-fire,  and  the  speakers  ad- 
dressed the  two  opposite  bodies  as  the  representatives  of 
the  phratries.  Formalities,  such  as  these,  have  a  pecu- 
liar charm  for  the  Red  Man  in  the  transaction  of  busi- 
ness. 

Again :  when  a  murder  had  been  committed  it  was 
usual  for  the  gens  of  the  murdered  person  to  meet  in 
council ;  and,  after  ascertaining  the  facts,  to  take  meas- 
ures for  avenging  the  deed.  The  gens  of  the  criminal 
also  held  a  council,  and  endeavored  to  effect  an  adjust- 
ment or  condonation  of  the  crime  with  the  gens  of  the 
murdered  person.  But  it  often  happened  that  the  gens 
of  the  criminal  called  upon  the  other  gentes  of  their 
phratry,  when  the  slayer  and  the  slain  belonged  to  op- 
posite phratries,  to  unite  with  them  to  obtain  a  condo- 
nation of  the  crime.  In  su-ch  a  case  the  phratry  held  a 
council,  and  then  addressed  itself  to  the  other  phratry 
to  which  it  sent  a  delegation  with  a  belt  of  white  wam- 
pum asking  for  a  council  of  the  phratry,  and  for  an  ad- 
justment of  the  crime.  They  offered  reparation  to  the 
family  and  gens  of  the  murdered  person  in  expressions 
of  regret  and  in  presents  of  value.  Negotiations  were 
continued  between  the  two  councils  until  an  affirmative 
or  a  negative  conclusion  was  reached.  The  influence  of 
a  phratry  composed  of  several  gentes  would  be  greater 
than  that  of  a  single  gens ;  and  by  calling  into  action  the 
opposite  phratry  the  probability  of  a  condonation  would 
be  increased,  especially  if  there  w-erc  extenuating  cir- 
cumstances. We  may  thus  see  how  naturally  the  Gre- 
cian phratry,  prior  to  civilization,  assumed  the  prmcipal 
though  not  exclusive  management  of  cases  of  murder, 
and  also  of  the  purification  of  the  murderer  if  he  escaped 

I  "League  of  the  Iroquois,"  p.  294. 


96  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

punishment;  and,  after  the  institution  of  political  society, 
with  what  proprietry  the  phratry  assumed  the  duty  of 
prosecuting  the  murderer  in  the  courts  of  justice. 

At  the  funerals  of  persons  of  recognized  importance 
in  the  tribe,  the  phratric  organization  manifested  itself  in 
a  conspicuous  manner.  The  phrators  of  the  decedent  in 
a  body  were  the  mourners,  and  the  members  of  the  op- 
posite phratry  conducted  the  ceremonies.  In  the  case  of 
a  sachem  it  was  usual  for  the  opposite  phratry  to  send, 
immediately  after  the  funeral,  the  official  wampum  belt 
of  the  deceased  ruler  to  the  central  council  fire  at  On- 
ondaga, as  a  notification  of  his  demise.  This  was  re- 
tained until  the  installation  of  his  successor,  when  it  was 
bestowed  upon  him  as  the  insignia'  of  his  office.  At  the 
funeral  of  Handsome  Lake  (Ga-ne-o-di'-yo),  one  of  the 
eight  Seneca  sachems  (which  occurred  some  years  ago), 
there  was  an  assemblage  of  sachems  and  chiefs  to  the 
number  of  twenty-seven,  and  a  large  concourse  of  mem- 
bers of  both  phratries.  The  customary  address  to  the 
dead  body,  and  the  other  addressess  before  the  removal 
of  the  body,  were  made  by  members  of  the  opposite 
phratry.  After  the  addressess  were  concluded,  the  body 
was  borne  to  the  grave  by  persons  selected  from  the  last 
named  phratry,  followed,  first,  by  the  sachems  and 
chiefs,  then  by  the  family  and  gens  of  the  decedent,  next 
by  his  remaining  phrators,  and  last  by  the  members  of 
the  opposite  phratry.  After  the  body  had  been  deposited 
in  the  grave  the  sachems  and  chiefs  formed  in  a  circle 
around  it  for  the  purpose  of  filling  it  with  earth.  Each 
in  turn,  commencing  with  the  senior  in  years,  cast  in 
three  shovelfuls,  a  typical  number  in  their  religious  sys- 
tem ;  of  which  the  first  had  relation  to  the  Great  Spirit, 
the  second  to  the  Sun,  and  the  third  to  Mother  Earth. 
When  the  grave  was  filled  the  senior  sachem,  by  a  figure 
of  speech,  deposited  "the  horns"  of  the  departed  sachem, 
emblematical  of  his  office,  upon  the  top  of  the  grave  over 
his  head,  there  to  remain  until  his  successor  was  installed. 
In  that  subsequent  ceremony,  "the  horns"  were  said  to 
be  taken  from  the  grave    of    the    deceased  ruler,  and 


IROQUOIS  PHRATRT  07 

placed  upon  the  head  of  his  successor.  ^  The  social  and 
rehgious  functions  of  the  phratry,  and  its  naturalness  in 
the  organic  system  of  ancient  society,  are  rendered  ap- 
parent by  this  single  usage. 

The  phratry  was  also  directly  concerned  in  the  elec- 
tion of  sachems  and  chiefs  of  the  several  gentes,  upon 
which  they  had  a  negative  as  well  as  a  confirmative  vote. 
After  the  gens  of  a  deceased  sachem  had  elected  his  suc- 
cessor, or  had  elected  a  chief  of  the  second  grade,  it  was 
necessary,  as  elsewhere  stated,  that  their  choice  should 
be  accepted  and  confirmed  by  each  phratry.  It  was  ex- 
pected that  the  gentes  of  the  same  phratry  would  con- 
firm the  choice  almost  as  a  matter  of  course ;  but  the  op- 
posite phratry  also  must  acquiesce,  and  from  this  source 
opposition  sometimes  appeared.  A  council  ofi  each  phra- 
try was  held  and  pronounced  upon  the  question  of  ac- 
ceptance or  rejection.  If  the  nomination  made  was  ac- 
cepted by  both  it  became  complete ;  but  if  either  refused 
it  was  thereby  set  aside,  and  a  new  election  was  made  by 
the  gens.  When  the  choice  made  by  the  gens  had  been 
accepted  by  the  phratries,  it  was  still  necessary,  as  be- 
fore stated,  that  the  new  sachem,  or  the  new  chief, 
should  be  invested  by  the  council  of  the  confederacy, 
which  alone  had  power  to  invest,  with  oflfice. 

The  Senecas  have  now  lost  their  Medicine  Lodges 
which  fell  out  in  modern  times;  but  they  formerly  ex- 
isted and  formed  a  prominent  part  of  their  religious  sys- 
tem. To  hold  a  \fedicine  Lodge  was  to  observe  their 
highest  religious  rites,  and  to  practice  their  highest  reli- 
gious mysteries.  They  had  two  such  organizations,  one 
in  each  phratry,  which  shows  still  further  the  natural 
connection  of  the  phratry  with  religious  observances. 
Very  little  is  now  known    concerning    these  lodges    or 

•  It  was  a  journey  of  ten  days  from  earth  to  heaven  for  the 
departed  spirit,  according  to  Iroquois  belief.  For  ten  days  after 
the  death  of  a  person,  the  mourners  met  nightly  to  lament  the 
deceased,  at  which  they  indulged  in  excessive  grief.  The  dirge 
or  wall  was  performed  by  women.  It  was  an  ancient  custom 
to  make  a  fire  on  the  grave  each  night  for  the  same^  period. 
On  the  eleventh  day  they  held  a  feast;  the  spirit  of  the  departed 
having  reached  heaven,  the  place  of  rest,  there  was  no  further 
cause  for  mournlngr.    With  the  feast  It  terminated. 


98  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

the'f  ceremonies.  Each  was  a  brotherhood,  into  which 
new  members  were  admitted  by  a  formal  initiation. 

The  phratry  was  without  governmental  functions  in 
the  strict  sense  of  the  phrase,  these  being  confined  to  the 
gens,  tribe  and  confederacy ;  but  it  entered  into  their  so- 
cial affairs  with  large  administrative  powers,  and  would 
have  concerned  itself  more  and  more  with  their  religious 
affairs  as  the  condition  of  the  people  advanced.  Un- 
like the  Grecian  phratry  and  the  Roman  curia  it  had  no 
official  head.  There  was  no  chief  of  the  phratry  as  such, 
and  no  religious  functionaries  belonging  to  it  as  distin- 
guished from  the  gens  and  tribe.  The  phratric  institu- 
tion among  the  Iroquois  was  in  its  rudimentary  archaic 
form,  but  it  grew  into  life  by  natural  and  inevitable  de- 
velopment, and  remained  permanent  because  it  met  neces- 
sary wants.  Every  institution  of  mankind  which  attained 
permanence  will  be  found  linked  with  a  perpetual  want. 
With  the  gens,  tribe  and  confederacy  in  existence  the 
presence  of  the  phratry  was  substantially  assured.  It 
required  time,  however,  and  further  experience  to  mani- 
fest all  the  uses  to  which  it  might  be  made  subservient. 

Among  the  Village  Indians  of  Mexico  and  Central 
America  the  phratry  must  have  existed,  reasoning  upon 
general  priciples;  and  have  been  a  more  fully  developed 
and  influential  organization  than  among  the  Iroquois. 
Unfortunately,  mere  glimpses  at  such  an  institution  are 
all  that  can  be  found  in  the  teeming  narratives  of  the 
Spanish  writers  within  the  first  century  after  the  Spanish 
conquest.  The  four  "lineages"  of  the  Tlascalans  who 
occupied  the  four  quarters  of  the  pueblo  of  Tlascala, 
were,  in  all  probability,  so  many  phratries.  They  were 
sufficiently  numerous  for  four  tribes ;  but  as  they  occu- 
pied the  same  pueblo  and  spoke  the  same  dialect  the  phra- 
tric organization  was  apparently  a  necessity.  Each  line- 
age, or  phratry  so  to  call  it,  had  a  distinct  military  or- 
ganization, a  peculiar  costume  and  banner,  and  its  head 
war-chief  (Teuctli),  who  was  its  general  military  com- 
mander. They  went  forth  to  battle  by  phratries.  The 
organization  of  a  military  force  by  phratries  and  by 
tribes  was  not  unknown  to  the  Homeric  Greeks.    Thus; 


IROQUOIS   PHRATRY  99 

Nestor  advises  Agamemnon  to  "separate  the  troops  by 
phratries  and  by  tribes,  so  that  phratry  may  support 
phratry  and  tribe  tribe."  ^  Under  gentile  institutions  of 
the  most  advanced  type  the  principle  of  kin  became,  to  a 
considerable  extent,  the  basis  of  the  army  organization. 
The  Aztecs,  in  hke  manner,  occupied  the  pueblo  of  Mex- 
ico in  four  distinct  divisions,  the  people  of  each  of  which 
were  more  nearly  related  to  each  other  than  to  the  peo- 
ple of  the  other  divisions.  They  were  separate  lineages, 
like  the  TIascalan,  and  it  seems  highly  probably  were 
four  phratries,  separately  organized  as  such.  They  were 
distinguished  from  each  other  by  costumes  and  stand- 
ards, and  went  out  to  war  as  separate  divisions.  Their 
geographical  areas  were  called  the  four  quarters  of  Mex- 
ico.   This  subject  will  be  referred  to  again. 

With  respect  to  the  prevalence  of  this  organization, 
among  the  Indian  tribes  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbar- 
ism, the  subject  has  been  but  slightly  investigated.  It  is 
probable  that  it  was  general  in  the  principal  tribes,  from 
the  natural  manner  in  which  it  springs  up  as  a  necessary 
member  of  the  organic  series,  and  from  the  uses,  other 
than  governmental,  to  which  it  was  adapted. 

In  some  of  the  tribes  the  phratries  stand  out  promi- 
nently upon  the  face  of  their  organization.  Thus,  the 
Chocta  gentes  are  united  in  two  phratries  which  must 
be  mentioned  first  in  order  to  show  the  relation  of  the 
gentes  to  each  other.  The  first  phratry  is  called  "Di- 
vided People,"  and  also  contains  four  gentes.  The  sec- 
ond is  called  "Beloved  People,"  and  also  contains  four 
gentes.  This  separation  of  the  people  into  two  divisions 
by  gentes  created  two  phratries.  Some  knowledge  of  the 
functions  of  these  phratries  is  of  course  desirable ;  but 
without  it  the  fact  of  their  existence  is  established  by  the 
divisions  themselves.  The  evolution  of  a  confederacy 
from  a  pair  of  gentes,  for  less  than  two  are  never  found 
in  any  tribe,  may  be  deduced,  theoretically,  from  the 
known  facts  of  Indian  experience.  Thus,  the  gens  in- 
creases in  the  number  of  its  members  and  divides  into 

I   "Iliad,"   11,  362. 


100  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

two;  these  again  subdivide,  and  in  time  reunite  in  two 
or  more  phratries.  These  phratries  form  a  tribe,  and  its 
members  speak  the  same  dialect.  In  course  of  time  this 
tribe  falls  into  several  by  the  process  of  segmentation, 
which  in  turn  reunite  in  a  confederacy.  Such  a  con- 
federacy is  a  growth,  through  the  tribe  and  phratry, 
from  a  pair  of  gentes. 

The  Chickasas  are  organized  in  two  phratries,  of  which 
one  contains  four,  and  the  other  eight  gentes,  as  follows : 

I.  Panther  Phratry. 

Gentes. — i.  Wild  Cat.     2.  Bird.     3.  Fish.     4.  Deer. 

II.  Spanish  Phratry. 

Gentes. — 5.  Raccoon.     6.  Spanish.     7.  Royal.     8.  Hush- 

ko'ni.      9.  Squirrel.      10.  Alligator.      11.  Wolf. 

12.  Blackbird. 

The  particulars  with  respect  to  the  Chocta  and  Chick- 
asa  phratries  I  am  unable  to  present.  Some  fourteen 
years  ago  these  organizations  were  given  to  me  by  Rev. 
Doctor  Cyrus  Byington  and  Rev.  Charles  C.  Copeland, 
but  without  discussing  their  uses  and  functions. 

A  very  complete  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which 
phratries  are  formed  by  natural  growth,  through  the  sub- 
division of  gentes,  is  presented  by  the  organization  of 
the  Mohegan  tribe.  It  had  three  original  gente?,  the 
Wolf,  the  Turtle,  and  the  Turkey. 

Each  of  these  subdivided,  and  the  subdivisions  became 
independent  gentes ;  but  they  retained  the  names  of  the 
original  gentes  as  their  respective  phratric  names.  In 
other  words  the  subdivisions  of  each  gens  reorganized 
in  a  phratry.  It  proves  conclusively  the  natural  process 
by  which,  in  course  of  time,  a  gens  breaks  up  into  sev- 
eral, and  these  remain  united  in  a  phratric  organization, 
which  is  expressed  by  assuming  a  phratric  name.  They 
are  as  follows : 

I.     IVoIf  Phratry. 

Gentes. — i.  Wolf.     2.  Bear.     3.  Dog.     4.  Opossum. 
II.     Turtle  Phratry. 

Gentes. — 5.  Little  Turtle.     6.  Mud  Turtle.     7.  Great 
Turtle.    8.  Yellow  Eel. 


IROQUOIS  PHRATRT  lOl 

III.     Turkey  Phratry. 
Gentes. — 9.  Turkey.     10.  Crane.    11.  Chicken. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  original  Wolf  gens  divided  into 
four  gentes,  the  Turtle  into  four,  and  the  Turkey  into 
three.  Each  new  gens  took  a  new  name,  the  original 
retaining  its  own,  which  became,  by  seniority,  that  of  the 
phratry.  It  is  rare  among  the  American  Indian  tribes 
to  find  such  plain  evidence  of  the  segmentation  of  gen- 
tes in  their  external  organization,  followed  by  the  forma- 
tion into  phratries  of  their  respective  subdivisions.  It 
shows  also  that  the  phratry  is  founded  upon  the  kinship 
of  the  gentes.  As  a  rule  the  name  of  the  original  gens 
out  of  which  others  had  formed  is  not  known ;  but  in  each 
of  these  cases  it  remains  as  the  name  of  the  phratry. 
Since  the  latter,  like  the  Grecian,  was  a  social  and  reli- 
gious rather  than  a  governmental  organization,  it  is  ex- 
ternally less  conspicuous  than  a  gens  or  tribe  which  were 
essential  to  the  goverment  of  society.  The  name  of  but 
one  of  the  twelve  Athenian  phratries  has  come  down  to 
us  in  history.  Those  of  the  Iroquois  had  no  name  but 
that  of  a  brotherhood. 

The  Delawares  and  Munsees  have  the  same  three  gen- 
tes, the  Wolf,  the  Turtle,  and  the  Turkey.  Among  the 
Delawares  there  are  twelve  embryo  gentes  in  each  tribe, 
but  they  seem  to  be  lineages  within  the  gentes  and  had 
not  taken  gentile  names.  It  was  a  movement,  however, 
in  that  direction. 

The  phratry  also  appears  among  the  Thlinkeets  of  the 
Northwest  coast,  upon  the  surface  of  their  organization 
into  gentes.     They  have  two  phratries.  as  follows : 

I.     JVolf  Phratry. 
Gentes:- — i.  Bear.     2.  Eagle.     3.  Dolphin.     4.  Shark. 

5.  Elca. 
II.    Raven  Phratry. 

Gentes. — 6.  Frog.     7.     Goose.     8.  Sea-lion.     9.  Owl. 

10.  .Salmon. 
Intermarriage    in    tlie    ])hratry    is  j^rohibited,    which 
shows,  of  itself,  that  the  gentes  of  each  phratry  were 


102  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

derived  from  an  original  gens.  ^  The  members  of  any 
gens  in  the  Wolf  phratry  could  marry  into  any  gens  of 
the  opposite  phratry,  and  vice  lersd. 

From  the  foregoing  facts  the  existence  of  the  phratry 
is  established  in  several  linguistic  stocks  of  the  American 
aborigines.  Its  presence  in  the  tribes  named  raises  a 
presumption  of  its  general  prevalence  in  the  Ganowanian 
family.  Among  the  \'illage  Indians,  where  the  numbers 
in  a  gens  and  tribe  were  greater,  it  would  necessarily 
have  been  more  important  and  consequently  more  fully 
developed.  As  an  institution  it  was  still  in  its  archaic 
form,  but  it  possessed  the  essential  elements  of  the  Gre- 
cian and  the  Roman.  It  can  now  be  asserted  that  the  full 
organic  series  of  ancient  society  exists  in  full  vitality  up- 
on the  American  continent ;  namely,  the  gens,  the 
phratry,  the  tribe,  and  the  confederacy  of  tribes.  With 
further  proofs  yet  to  be  adduced,  the  universality  of  the 
gentile  organization  upon  all  the  continents  will  be  estab- 
lished. 

If  future  investigation  is  directed  specially  to  the  func- 
tions of  the  phratric  organization  among  the  tribes  of 
the  American  aborigines,  the  knowledge  gained  will  ex- 
plain many  peculiarities  of  Indian  life  and  manners  not 
well  understood,  and  throw  additional  light  upon  their 
usages  and  customs,  and  upon  their  plan  of  life  and  gov- 
ernment. 

I    Bancroft's    "Xative    Races    of    tlip    Pacific    States,"    T,    109. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE   IROQUOIS   TRIBE 

It  is  difficult  to  describe  an  Indian  tribe  by  the  affirma- 
tive elements  of  its  composition.  Nevertheless  it  is 
clearly  marked,  and  the  ultimate  organization  of  the  great 
body  of  the  American  aborigines.  The  large  number  of 
independent  tribes  into  which  they  had  fallen  by  the  nat- 
ural process  of  segmentation,  is  the  striking  character- 
istic of  their  condition.  Each  tribe  was  individualized 
by  a  name,  by  a  separate  dialect,  by  a  supreme  govern- 
ment, and  by  the  possession  of  a  territory  which  it  occu- 
pied and  defended  as  its  own.  The  tribes  were  as  num- 
erous as  the  dialects,  for  separation  did  not  become  com- 
plete until  dialectical  variation  had  commenced.  Indian 
tribes,  therefore,  are  natural  growths  through  the  sepa- 
ration of  the  same  people  in  the  area  of  their  occupation, 
followed  by  divergence  of  speech,  segmentation,  and  in- 
dependence. 

We  have  seen  that  the  phratry  was  not  so  much  a  gov- 
ernmental as  a  social  organization,  while  the  gens,  tribe, 
and  confederacy,  were  necessary  and  logical  stages  of 
progress  in  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  government.  A 
confederacy  could  not  exist,  under  gentile  society,  with- 
out tribes  as  a  basis ;  nor  could  tribes  exist  without 
gentes,  though  they  might  without  phratries.  In  this 
chapter  I  will  endeavor  to  point  out  the  manner  in  which 
these  numerous  tribes  were  formed,  and,  presumptively 
out  of  one  original  people :  the  causes  which  produced 
their  perpetual  segmentation ;  and  the  principal  attrib- 
utes which  distinguished  an  Indian  tribe  as  an  organiza- 
tion. 

108 


104  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

The  exclusive  possession  of  a  dialect  and  of  a  territory 
has  led  to  the  application  of  the  term  tiation  to  many  In- 
dian tribes,  notwithstanding  the  fewness  of  the  people  in 
each.  Tribe  and  nation,  however,  are  not  strict  equiv- 
alents. A  nation  does  not  arise,  under  gentile  institu- 
tions, until  the  tribes  united  under  the  same  government 
have  coalesced  into  one  people,  as  the  four  Athenian 
tribes  coalesced  in  Attica,  three  Dorian  tribes  at  Sparta, 
and  three  Latin  and  Sabine  tribes  at  Rome.  Federation 
requires  independent  tribes  in  separate  territorial  areas ; 
but  coalescence  unites  them  by  a  higher  process  in  the 
same  area,  although  the  tendency  to  local  separation  by 
gentes  and  by  tribes  would  continue.  The  confederacy 
is  the  nearest  analogue  of  the  nation,  but  not  strictly 
equivalent.  Where  the  gentile  organization  exists,  the 
organic  series  gives  all  the  terms  which  are  needed  for 
a  correct  description. 

An  Indian  tribe  is  composed  of  several  gentes,  devel- 
oped from  two  or  more,  all  the  members  of  which  are 
intermingled  by  marriage,  and  all  of  whom  speak  the 
same  dialect.  To  a  stranger  the  tribe  is  visible,  and  not 
the  gens.  The  instances  are  extremely  rare,  among  the 
American  aborigines,  in  which  the  tribe  embraced  peo- 
ples speaking  different  dialects.  When  such  cases  are 
found,  it  resulted  from  the  union  of  a  weaker  with  a 
stronger  tribe,  speaking  a  closely  related  dialect,  as  the 
union  of  the  Missouris  with  the  Otoes  after  the  over- 
throw of  the  former.  The  fact  that  the  great  body  of 
the  aborigines  were  found  in  independent  tribes  illus- 
trates the  slow  and  difficult  growth  of  the  idea  of  gov- 
ernment under  gentile  institutions.  A  small  portion 
only  had  attained  to  the  ultimate  stage  known  among 
them,  that  of  a  confederacy  of  tribes  speaking  dialects 
of  the  same  stock  language.  A  coalescence  of  tribes  into 
a  nation  had  not  occurred  in  any  case  in  any  part  of 
America. 

A  constant  tendency  to  disintegration,  which  has 
proved  such  a  hindrance  to  progress  among  savage  and 
barbarous  tribes,  existed  in  the  elements  of  the  gentile 
organization.     It  was  aggravated  by  a  further  tendency 


IROQUOIS  TRIBE  105 

to  divergence  of  speech,  which  was  inseparable  from 
their  social  state  and  the  large  areas  of  their  occupation. 
A  verbal  language,  although  remarkably  persistent  in  its 
vocables,  and  still  more  persistent  in  its  grammatical 
forms,  is  incapable  of  permanence.  Separation  of  the 
people  in  area  was  followed  in  time  by  variation  in 
speech ;  and  this,  in  turn,  led  to  separation  in  interests 
and  ultimate  independence.  It  was  not  the  work  of  a 
brief  period,  but  of  centuries  of  time,  aggregating  finally 
into  thousands  of  years.  The  great  number  of  dialects 
and  stock  languages  in  North  and  South  America,  which 
presumptively  were  derived,  the  Eskimo  excepted,  from 
one  original  language,  require  for  their  formation  the 
time  measured  by  three  ethnical  periods. 

New  tribes  as  well  as  new  gentes  were  constantly 
forming  by  natural  growth ;  and  the  process  was  sensibly 
accelerated  by  the  great  expanse  of  the  American  con- 
tinent. The  method  was  simple.  In  the  first  place  there 
would  occur  a  gradual  outflow  of  people  from  some 
overstocked  geographical  centre,  which  possessed  supe- 
rior advantages  in  the  means  of  subsistence.  Continued 
from  year  to  year,  a  considerable  population  would  thus 
be  developed  at  a  distance  from  the  original  seat  of  the 
tribe.  In  course  of  time  the  emigrants  would  become 
distinct  in  interests,  strangers  in  feeling,  and  last  of  all, 
divergent  in  speech.  Separation  and  independence  would 
follow,  although  their  territories  were  contiguous.  A 
new  tribe  was  thus  created.  This  is  a  concise  statement 
of  the  manner  in  which  the  tribes  of  the  American  abor- 
igines were  formed,  but  the  statement  must  be  taken  as 
general.  Repeating  itself  from  age  to  age  in  newly  ac- 
quired as  well  as  in  old  areas,  it  must  be  regarded  as 
a  natural  as  well  as  inevitable  result  of  the  gentile  or- 
ganization, united  with  the  necessities  of  their  condi- 
tion. When  increased  numbers  pressed  upon  the  means 
of  subsistence,  the  surplus  removed  to  a  new  seat  where 
they  established  themselves  with  facility,  because  the 
government  was  perfect  in  every  gens,  and  in  any 
number  of  gentes  united  in  a  band,  .\mong  the  Village 
Indians  the  same  repeated  itself  in  a  slightly  different 


106  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

manner.  When  a  village  became  overcrowded  with  num- 
bers, a  colony  went  up  or  down  on  the  same  stream  and 
commenced  a  new  village.  Repeated  at  intervals  of  time 
several  such  villages  would  appear,  each  independent  of 
the  other  and  a  self-governing  body;  but  united  in  a 
league  or  confederacy  for  mutual  protection.  Dialectical 
variation  would  finally  spring  up,  and  thus  complete 
their  growth  into  tribes. 

The  manner  in  which  tribes  are  evolved  from  each  oth- 
er can  be  shown  directly  by  examples.  The  fact  of  sep- 
aration is  derived  in  part  from  tradition,  in  part  from  the 
possession  by  each  of  a  number  of  the  same  gentes,  and 
deduced  in  part  from  the  relations  of  their  dialects. 
Tribes  formed  by  the  subdivisions  of  an  original  tribe 
would  possess  a  number  of  gentes  in  common,  and  speak 
dialects  of  the  same  language.  After  several  centuries 
of  separation  they  would  still  have  a  number  of  the  same 
gentes.  Thus,  the  Hurons,  now  Wyandotes,  have  six 
gentes  of  the  same  name  with  six  of  the  gentes  of  the 
Seneca-Iroquois,  after  at  least  four  hundred  years  of 
separation.  The  Potawattamies  have  eight  gentes  of  the 
same  name  with  eight  among  the  Ojibwas,  while  the 
former  have  six,  and  the  latter  fourteen,  which  are  dif- 
ferent ;  showing  that  new  gentes  have  been  formed  in 
each  tribe  by  segmentation  since  their  separation.  A  still 
older  offshoot  from  the  Ojibwas,  or  from  the  common 
parent  tribe  of  both,  the  Miamis,  have  but  three  gentes 
in  common  with  the  former,  namely,  the  Wolf,  the  Loon, 
and  the  Eagle.  The  minute  social  history  of  the  tribes 
of  the  Ganowanian  family  is  locked  up  in  the  life  and 
growth  of  the  gentes.  If  investigation  is  ever  turned 
strongly  in  this  direction,  the  gentes  themselves  would 
become  reliable  guides,  both  in  respect  to  the  order  of 
separation  from  each  other  of  the  tribes  of  the  same 
stock,  and  possibly  of  the  great  stocks  of  the  aborigines. 

The  following  illustrations  are  drawn  from  tribes  in 
the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism.  When  discovered,  the 
eight  Missouri  tribes  occupied  the  banks  of  the  Missouri 
river  for  more  than  a  thousand  miles ;  together  with  the 
banks  of  its  tributaries,  the  Kansas  and  the  Platte ;  and 


IROQVOIS  TRIBE  107 

also  the  smaller  rivers  of  Iowa.  They  also  occupied  the 
west  bank  of  the  Mississippi  down  to  the  Arkansas. 
Their  dialects  show  that  the  people  were  in  three  tribes 
before  the  last  subdivisions ;  namely,  first,  the  Punkas 
and  Omalias,  second,  the  lowas,  Otoes  and  Missouris, 
and  third,  the  Kaws,  Osages  and  Quappas.  These  three 
were  undoubtedly  subdivisions  of  a  single  original  tribe, 
because  their  several  dialects  are  still  much  nearer  to 
each  other  than  to  any  other  dialect  of  the  Dakotian 
stock  language  to  which  they  belong.  There  is,  there- 
fore, a  linguistic  necessity  for  their  derivation  from  an 
original  tribe.  A  gradual  spread  from  a  central  point  on 
this  river  along  its  banks,  both  above  and  below,  would 
lead  to  a  separation  in  interests  with  the  increase  of  dis- 
tance between  their  settlements,  followed  by  divergence 
of  speech,  and  finally  by  independence,  A  people  thus 
extending  themselves  along  a  river  in  a  prairie  country 
might  separate,  first  into  three  tribes,  and  afterwards 
into  eight,  and  the  organization  of  each  subdivision  re- 
main complete.  Division  was  neither  a  shock,  nor  an 
appreciated  calamity ;  but  a  separation  into  parts  by  nat- 
ural expansion  over  a  larger  area,  followed  by  a  com- 
plete segmentation.  The  uppermost  tribe  on  the  Mis- 
souri were  the  Punkas  at  the  mouth  of  the  Niobrara  river, 
and  the  lov.-ermost  the  Quappas  at  the  mouth  of  the  Ar- 
kansas on  the  Mississippi,  with  an  interval  of  near  fifteen 
hundred  miles  between  them.  The  intermediate  region, 
confined  to  the  narrow  belt  of  forest  upon  the  Missouri, 
was  held  by  the  remaining  six  tribes.  They  were  strictly 
River  Tribes. 

Another  illustration  may  be  found  in  the  tribes  of  Lake 
Superior.  The  Ojibwas,  Otawas^  and  Potawattamies  are 
subdivisions  of  an  original  tribe;  the  Ojibwas  represent- 
ing the  stem,  because  they  remained  at  the  original  seat 
at  the  great  fisheries  upon  the  outlet  of  the  lake.  More- 
over, they  are  styled  "Elder  Brother"  by  the  remaining 
two;  while  the  Otawas  were  styled  "Next  Older  Broth- 
er," and  the   Potawattamies  "Younger  Brother."     The 

»  O-U'-was. 


108  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

last  tribe  separated  first,  and  the  Otawas  last,  as  is  rhown 
by  the  relative  amount  of  dialectical  variation,  that  of 
the  former  being  greatest.  At  the  time  of  their  discov- 
ery, A.  D.  1 64 1,  the  Ojibwas  were  seated  at  the  Rapids 
on  the  outlet  of  Lake  Superior,  from  which  point  they 
had  spread  along  the  southern  shore  of  the  lake  to  the 
site  of  Ontonagon,  along  its  northeastern  shore,  and 
down  the  St.  Alary  River  well  toward  Lake  Huron.  Their 
position  possessed  remarkable  advantages  for  a  fish  and 
game  subsistence,  which,  as  they  did  not  cultivate  maize 
and  plants,  was  their  main  reliance.  ^  It  was  second  to 
none,  in  North  America,  with  the  single  exception  of  the 
\^alley  of  the  Columbia.  With  such  advantages  they  were 
certain  to  develop  a  large  Indian  population,  and  to  send 
out  successive  bands  of  emigrants  to  become  independent 
tribes.  The  Potawattamies  occupied  a  region  on  the 
confines  of  Upper  Michigan  and  Wisconsin,  from  which 
the  Dakotas  in  164 1,  were  in  the  act  of  expelling  them. 
At  the  same  time  the  Otawas,  whose  earlier  residence 
is  supposed  to  have  been  on  the  Otawa  river  of  Canada, 
had  drawn  westward  and  were  then  seated  upon  the 
Georgian  Bay,  the  ManitouHne  Islands  and  at  Mackinaw, 
from  which  points  they  were  spreading  southward  over 
Lower  Michigan.  Originally  one  people,  and  possessing 
the  same  gentes,  they  had  succeeded  in  appropriating  a 
large  area.  Separation  in  place,  and  distance  between 
their  settlements,  had  long  before  their  discovery  resulted 
in  the  formation  of  dialects,  and  in  tribal  independence. 
The  three  tribes,  whose  territories  were  contiguous,  had 
formed  an  alliance  for  mutual  protection,  known  among 
Americans  as  "the  Otawa  Confederacy."  It  was  a  league, 
ofifensive  and  defensive,  and  not,  probably,  a  close  con- 
federacy like  that  of  the  Iroquois. 

Prior  to  these  secessions  another  affiliated  tribe,  the 
Miamis,  had  broken  off  from  the  Ojibwa  stock,  or  the 
common  parent  tribe,  and  migrated    to    central    Illinois 

I  The  Objiwas  manufactured  earthen  pipes,  water  jars,  and 
vessels  In  ancient  limes,  as  they  now  assert.  Indian  pottery 
has  been  dug-  up  at  different  times  at  the  Sault  St.  Mary,  which 
they    recog-riize    as    tb.e    work    of    their    forefathers. 


IROQUOIS  TRIBE  109 

and  western  Indiana.  Following  in  the  track  of  this 
migration  were  the  Illinois,  another  and  later  offshoot 
from  the  same  stem,  who  afterwards  subdivided  into  the 
Peorias,  Kaskaskias,  Weaws,  and  Piankeshaws.  Their 
dialects,  with  that  of  the  Miamis,  find  their  nearest  af- 
finity with  the  Ojibwa,  and  next  with  the  Cree.  ^  The 
outflow  of  all  these  tribes  from  the  central  seat  at  the 
great  fisheries  of  Lake  Superior  is  a  significant  fact, 
because  it  illustrates  the  manner  in  which  tribes  are 
formed  in  connection  with  natural  centres  of  subsistence. 
The  New  England,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia  and 
Carolina  Algonkins  were,  in  all  probability,  derived 
from  the  same  source.  Several  centuries  would  be  re- 
quired for  the  formation  of  the  dialects  first  named,  and 
for  the  production  of  the  amount  of  variation  they  now 
exhibit. 

The  foregoing  examples  represent  the  natural  process 
by  which  tribes  are  evolved  from  each  other,  or  from 
a  parent  tribe  established  in  an  advantageous  position. 
Each  emigrating  band  was  in  the  nature  of  a  military 
colony,  if  it  may  be  so  strongly  characterized,  seeking  to 
acquire  and  hold  a  new  area ;  preserving  at  first,  and  as 
long  as  possible,  a  connection  with  the  mother  tribe.  By 
these  successive  movements  they  sought  to  expand  their 
joint  possessions,  and  afterward  to  resist  the  intrusion 
of  alien  people  within  their  limits.  It  is  a  noticeable  fact 
that  Indian  tribes  speaking  dialects  of  the  same  stock 
language  have  usually  been  found  in  territorial  contin- 
uity, however  extended  their  common  area.  The  same 
has,  in  the  main,  been  true  of  all  the  tribes  of  mankind 
linguistically  united.  It  is  because  the  people,  spreading 
from  some  geographical  centre,  and  maintaining  an  ardu- 
ous struggle  for  subsistence,  and  for  the  possession  of 
their  new  territories,  have  preserved  their  connection 
with  the  mother  land  as  a  means  of  succor  in  times  of 
danger,  and  as  a  place  of  refuge  in  calamity. 


I  The  Potawattamie  and  the  Cree  have  diverged  about 
equany.  It  Is  probable  that  the  Ojlbwas,  Otawas  and  Crees  were 
one  people  in  dialect  after  the  Potawattamies-  became  de- 
tached. 


no  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

It  required  special  advantages  in  the  means  o£  subsist- 
ence to  render  any  area  an  initial  point  of  migration 
through  the  gradual  development  of  a  surplus  popula- 
tion. These  natural  centres  were  few  in  number  in  North 
America.  There  are  but  three.  First  among  them  is  the 
X'alley  of  the  Columbia,  the  most  extraordinary  region 
on  the  face  of  the  earth  in  the  variety  and  amount  of 
subsistence  it  afforded,  prior  to  the  cultivation  of  miaize 
and  plants ;  second,  the  peninsula  between  Lakes  Supe- 
rior, Huron  and  ^Michigan,  the  seat  of  the  Ojibwas,  and 
the  nursery  land  of  many  Indian  tribes;  and  third,  the 
lake  region  in  Minnesota,  the  nursery  ground  of  the 
present  Dakota  tribes.  These  are  the  only  regions  in 
North  America  that  can  be  called  natural  centres  of  sub- 
sistence, and  natural  sources  of  surplus  numbers.  There 
are  reasons  for  believing  that  Minnesota  was  a  part  of 
the  Algonkin  area  before  it  was  occupied  by  the  Da- 
kotas.  When  the  cultivation  of  maize  and  plants  came 
in,  it  tended  to  localize  the  people  and  support  them  in 
smaller  areas,  as  well  as  to  increase  their  numbers ;  but 
it  failed  to  transfer  the  control  of  the  continent  to  the 
most  advanced  tribes  of  Milage  Indians,  who  subsisted 
almost  entirely  by  cultivation.  Horticulture  spread  among 
the  principal  tribes  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism 
and  greatly  improved  their  condition.  They  held,  with 
the  nonhorticultural  tribes,  the  great  areas  of  Nortli 
America  when  it  was  discovered,  and  from  their  ranks 
the   continent   was  being   replenished    with   inhabitants.  '^ 

I  As  a  mixture  of  forest  and  prairie  it  was  an  exceUent  grame 
country.  A  species  of  bread-root,  tlie  kamash,  grew  In  abund- 
ance in  the  prairies.  In  the  summer  tliere  was  a  profusion  of 
berries.  But  In  these  respects  it  was  not  superior  to  otlier 
areas.  That  which  signalized  the  region  was  the  inexhaustible 
supply  of  salmon  in  the  Columbia,  and  other  rivers  of  the 
coast.  They  crowded  these  streams  in  millions,  and  were  taken 
in  the  season  with  facility,  and  in  the  greatest  abundance. 
After  being  split  open  and  dried  In  the  sun,  they  were  packed 
and  removed  to  their  villages,  and  formed  their  principal  food 
during  the  greater  part  of  the  year.  Beside  these  were  the 
shell  fisheries  of  the  coast,  which  supplied  a  large  amount  of 
food  during  the  winter  months.  Superadded  to  these  concen- 
trated advantages,  the  climate  was  mild  and  equable  through- 
out the  year— about  that  of  Tennessee  and  Virginia.  It  was 
the   paradise   of  tribes   without   a  knowledge   of   the   cereals. 

»  It  can  be  shown  with  a  great  degree  of  probability,  that 
the  "Valley  of  the  Columbia  was  the  seed  land  of  the  Ganowin- 


IROQUOIS  TRIBE  HI 

The  multiplication  of  tribes  and  dialects  nas  been  the 
fruitful  source  of  the  incessant  warfare  of  the  aborigines 

ian  family,  from  which  issued,  in  past  ages,  successive  streams 
of  migrating  bands,  until  both  divisions  of  the  continent  were 
occupied.  And  further,  that  both  divisions  continued  to  be  re- 
plenished with  inhabitants  from  this  source  down  to  the  epoch 
of  European  discovery.  These  conclusions  may  be  deduced 
from  physical  causes,  from  the  relative  conditions,  and  from 
the  linguistic  relations  of  the  Indian  tribes.  The  great  expanse 
of  the  central  prairies,  which  spread  continuously  more  than 
fifteen  hundred  miles  from  north  to  south,  and  more  than  a 
thousand  miles  from  east  to  west,  interposed  a  barrier  to  a 
free  communication  between  tlie  Pacific  and  Atlantic  sides  of 
the  continent  in  North  America.  It  seems  probable,  tlierefore, 
that  an  original  family  commencing  its  spread  from  the  Valley 
of  the  Columbia,  and  migrating  under  the  influence  of  physical 
causes,  would  reach  Patagonia  sooner  than  they  would  Florida. 
The  known  facts  point  so  strongly  to  this  region  as  tlie  orig- 
inal home  of  the  Indian  family,  that  a  moderate  amount  of 
additional    evidence   will   render   the    hypothesis   conclusive. 

The  discovery  and  cultivation  of  maize  did  not  cliange  mater- 
ially the  course  of  events,  or  suspend  the  operation  of  previous 
causes;  though  it  became  an  important  factor  In  the  progress  of 
Improvement.  It  is  not  known  where  this  American  cereal  was 
Indigenous;  but  the  tropical  region  of  Central  America,  where 
vegetation  is  intensely  active,  where  this  plant  is  peculiarly 
fruitful,  and  where  the  oldest  seats  of  the  Village  Indians 
were  found,  has  been  assumed  by  common  consent,  as  the 
probable  place  of  its  nativity.  If,  then,  cultivation  commenced 
in  Central  America,  it  would  have  propagated  Itself  first  over 
Mexico,  and  from  thence  to  New  Mexico  and  the  valley  of  the 
Mississippi,  and  thence  again  eastward  to  the  shores  of  the 
Atlantic;  the  volume  of  cultivation  diminishing  from  the  start- 
ing-point to  the  extremities.  It  would  spread,  independently 
of  the  Village  Indians,  from  the  desire  of  more  barbarous 
tribes  to  gain  the  new  subsistence;  but  it  never  extended 
beyond  New  Mexico  to  the  Valley  of  the  Columbia,  though 
cultivation  was  practiced  by  the  Mlnnitarees  and  Mandans  of 
the  Upper  Missouri,  by  the  Shyans  on  the  Red  River  of  the 
North,  by  the  Hurons  of  Lake  Simcoe  In  Canada,  and  by  the 
Abenakies  of  the  Kennebec,  as  well  as  generally  by  the  tribes 
between  the  Mississippi  and  the  Atlantic.  Migrating  bands 
from  the  Valley  of  the  Columbia,  following  upon  the  track  of 
their  predecessors  would  press  upon  the  Village  Indians  of 
New  Mexico  and  Mexico,  te.adlng  to  force  displaced  and  frag- 
mentary tribes  toward  and  through  the  Isthmus  into  South 
America.  Such  expelled  bands  would  carry  with  them  the  first 
germs  of  progress  developed  by  Village  Indian  life.  Repeated 
at  Intervals  of  time  it  would  tend  to  bestow  upon  South 
America  a  class  of  inhabitants  far  superior  to  the  wild  bands 
previously  supplied,  and  at  the  expense  of  the  northern  sec- 
tion thus  impoverished.  In  the  final  result,  South  America 
would  attain  the  advanced  position  in  development,  even  In  an 
Inferior  country,  which  seems  to  have  been  the  fact.  The 
Peruvian  legend  of  Manco  Capac  and  Mama  Cello,  children  of 
the  sun,  brother  and  sister,  husband  and  wife,  shows,  if  It 
can  be  said  to  show  anything,  that  a  band  of  Village  Indians 
migrating  from  a  distance,  though  not  necessarily  from  North 
America  direct,  had  gathered  together  and  taught  the  rude 
tribes  of  the  Andes  the  higher  arts  of  life,  including  the  cul- 
tivation of  maize  and  plants.  By  a  simple  and  quite  natural 
process  the  legend  has  dropped  out  the  band,  and  retained  only 
the  leader  and  his  wife,  ._ 


112  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

Upon  each  other.  As  a  rule  the  most  persistent  warfare 
has  been  waged  between  tribes  speaking  different  stock 
languages ;  as,  for  example,  between  the  Iroquois  and 
Algonkin  tribes,  and  between  the  Dakota  tribes  and  the 
same.  On  the  contrary  the  Algonkin  and  Dakota  tribes 
severally  have,  in  general,  lived  at  peace  among  them- 
selves. Had  it  been  otherwise  they  would  not  have  been 
found  in  the  occupation  of  continuous  areas.  The  worst 
exception  were  the  Iroquois,  who  pursued  a  war  of  exter- 
mination against  their  kindred  tribes,  the  Eries,  the  Neu- 
tral Nation,  the  Hurons  and  the  Susquehannocks.  Tribes 
speaking  dialects  of  the  same  stock  language  are  able  to 
communicate  orally  and  thus  compose  their  differences. 
They  also  learned,  in  virtue  of  their  common  descent,  to 
depend  upon  each  other  as  natural  allies. 

Numbers  within  a  given  area  were  limited  by  the 
amount  of  subsistence  it  afforded.  When  fish  and  game 
were  the  main  reliance  for  food,  it  required  an  immense 
area  to  maintain  a  small  tribe.  After  farinaceous  food 
was  superadded  to  fish  and  game,  the  area  occupied  by 
a  tribe  was  still  a  large  one  in  proportion  to  the  number 
of  the  people.  New  York,  with  its  forty-seven  thousand 
square  miles,  never  contained  at  any  time  more  than 
twenty-five  thousand  Indians,  including  with  the  Iro- 
quois the  Algonkins  on  the  east  side  of  the  Hudson  and 
upon  Long  Island,  and  the  Eries  and  Neutral  Nation  in 
the  western  section  of  the  state.  A  personal  government 
founded  upon  gentes  was  incapable  of  developing  suf- 
ficient central  power  to  follow  and  control  the  increasing 
numbers  of  the  people,  unless  they  remained  within  a 
reasonable  distance  from  each  other. 

Among  the  Village  Indians  of  New  Mexico,  Mexico, 
and  Central  America  an  increase  of  numbers  in  a  small 
area  did  not  arrest  the  process  of  disintegration.  Each 
pueblo  was  usually  an  independent  self-governing  com- 
munity. Where  several  pueblos  were  seated  near  each 
other  on  the  same  stream,  the  people  were  usually  of 
common  descent,  and  either  under  a  tribal  or  confeder- 
ate government.  There  are  some  seven  stock  languages 
in  New  Mexico  alone,  each  spoken    in  several  dialects. 


IROQUOIS  TRIBE  118 

At  the  time  of  Coronado's  expedition,  1540- 1542,  the 
villages  found  were  numerous  but  small.  There  were 
seven  each  of  Cibola,  Tucayan,  Quivira,  and  Hemez, 
and  twelve  of  Tiguex,^  and  other  groups  indicating  a 
linguistic  connection  of  their  members.  Whether  or  not 
each  group  was  confederated  we  are  not  informed.  The 
seven  Moqui  Pueblos  (the  Tucayan  Villages  of  Coron- 
ado's expedition),  are  said  to  be  confederated  at  the 
present  time,  and  probably  were  at  the  time  of  their 
discovery. 

The  process  of  subdivision,  illustrated  by  the  forego- 
ing examples,  has  been  operating  among  the  American 
aborigines  for  thousands  of  years,  until  upwards  of  forty 
stock  languages,  as  near  as  is  known,  have  been  devel- 
oped in  North  America  alone ;  each  spoken  in  a  number 
of  dialects,  by  an  equal  number  of  independent  tribes. 
Their  experience,  probably,  was  but  a  repetition  of  that 
of  the  tribes  of  Asia.  Europe  and  Africa,  when  they  were 
in  corresponding  conditions. 

From  the  preceding  observations,  it  is  apparent  that 
an  American  Indian  tribe  is  a  very  simple  as  well  as 
humble  organization.  It  required  but  a  few  hundreds, 
and,  at  most,  a  few  thousand  people  to  form  a  tribe,  and 
place  it  in  a  respectable  position  in  the  Ganowanian 
family. 

It  remains  to  present  the  functions  and  attributes  of 
an  Indian  tribe,  which  may  be  discussed  under  the  fol- 
lowing proposition:, : 

I.     The  possession  of  d  territory  and  a  name. 
II.     The  exclusive  possession  of  a  dialect. 

III.  The  right  to  invest  sachems  and  chiefs  elected  by 

the  gentes. 

IV.  The  right  to  depose  these  sachems  and  chiefs. 
V.     The  possession  of  a  religions  faith  and  worship. 

VI.     A  supreme  government  consisting  of  a  council  of 

chiefs. 
VII.     A  head-chief  of  the  tribe  in  some  instances. 

I  "Coll.    Ternaux-Compans,"    IX,    pp.    181-18.^. 


114  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

It  will  be  sufficient  to  make  a  brief  reference  to  each 
of  these  several  attributes  of  a  tribe. 

I.     The  possession  of  a  territory  and  a  name. 

Their  territory  consisted  of  the  area  of  their  actual 
settlements,  and  so  much  of  the  surrounding  region  as 
the  tribe  ranged  over  in  hunting  and  fishing,  and  were 
able  to  defend  against  the  encroachments  of  other  tribes. 
Without  this  area  was  a  wide  margin  of  neutral  grounds, 
separating  them  from  their  nearest  frontegers  il  they 
spoke  a  different  language,  and  claimed  by  neither;  but 
less  wide,  and  less  clearly  marked,  when  th?y  spoke 
dialects  of  the  same  language.  The  country  thus  im- 
perfectly defined,  whether  large  or  small,  was  /he  domain 
of  the  tribe,  recognized  as  such  by  other  tribes,  and  de- 
fended as  such  by  themselves. 

In  due  time  the  tribe  became  individualized  by  a  name, 
which,  from  their  usual  character,  must  have  been  in 
many  cases  accidental  rather  than  deliberate.  Thus,  the 
Senecas  styled  themselves  the  "Great  Hill  People"  (Nun- 
da'-wa-o-no),  the  Tuscaroras,  "Shirt-wearing  People" 
(Dus-ga'-o-weh-o-no'),  the  Sissetons,  "Village  of  the 
Marsh"  fSis-se'-to-wan),  the  Ogalallas,  "Camp  Movers" 
(O-ga-lal'-la),  the  Omahas,  "Upstream  People"  (O-ma'- 
ha),  the  lowas,  "Dusty  Noses"  (Pa-ho'-cha),  the  Min- 
nitarees,  "People  from  Afar"  (E-nat'-za),  the  Cherokees, 
"Great  People"  (Tsji-lo'-kee),  the  Shawnees,  "Southern- 
ers" (Sa-wan-wakee'),  the  Mohegans,  "Sea-side  Peo- 
ple" (Mo-he-kun-e-uk),  the  Slave  Lake  Indians,  "Peo- 
ple of  the  Lowlands"  (A-cha'o-tin-ne).  Among  the 
Village  Indians  of  Mexico,  the  Sochimilcos  styled  them- 
selves "Nation  of  the  Seeds  of  Flowers,"  the  Chalcans, 
"People  of  Mouths,"  the  Tepanecans,  "People  of  the 
Bridge,"  the  Tezcucans  or  Culhuas  "A  Crooked'  People," 
and  the  Tlascalans  "Men  of  Bread."  When  European 
colonization  began  in  the  northern  part  of  America,  the 
names  of  Indian  tribes  were  obtained,  not  usually  from 
the  tribe  direct,  but  from  other  tribes  who  had  bestowed 

I   Acosta.     "The  Natural   and   Moral  History   of  the   East   and 
West   Indies,"   Lond.   ed.,    1604,   Grlmstone's   Trans.,   pp.    600-503. 


/"  IROQUOIS  TRIBE  115 

names  upon  them  different  from  their  own.  As  a  conse- 
quence, a  number  of  tribes  are  now  known  in  history 
under  names  not  recognized  by  themselves, 

II.  The  exclushe  possession  of  a  dialect. 

Tribe  and  dialect  are  substantially  co-extensive,  but 
there  are  exceptions  growing  out  of  special  cicumstan- 
ces.  Thus,  the  twelve  Dakota  bands  are  now  properly 
tribes,  because  they  are  distinct  in  interests  and  in  or- 
ganization; but  they  were  forced  into  premature  separa- 
tion by  the  advance  of  Americans  upon  their  original 
area  which  forced  them  upon  the  plains.  They  had  re- 
mained in  such  intimate  connection  previously  that  but 
one  new  dialect  had  commenced  forming,  the  Tecton,  on 
the  Missouri;  the  Isauntie  on  the  Mississippi  being  the 
original  speech.  A  few  years  ago  the  Cherokees  num- 
bered twenty-six  thousand,  the  largest  number  of  Indi- 
ans ever  found  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States 
speaking  the  same  dialect.  But  in  the  mountain  districts 
of  Georgia  a  slight  divergence  of  speech  had  occurred, 
though  not  sufficient  to  be  distinguished  as  a  dialect. 
There  are  a  few  other  similar  cases,  but  they  do  not 
break  the  general  rule  during  the  aboriginal  period  which 
made  tribe  and  dialect  co-extensive.  The  Ojibwas,  who 
are  still  in  the  main  non-horticultural,  now  number  about 
fifteen  thousand,  and  speak  the  same  dialect ;  and  the 
Dakota  tribes  collectively  about  twenty-five  thousand 
who  speak  two  very  closely  related  dialects,  as  stated. 
These  several  tribes  are  exceptionally  large.  The  tribes 
within  the  United  States  and  British  America  would 
yield,  on  an  average,  less  than  two  thousand  persons  to 
a  tribe. 

III.  The  right  of  investing  sachems  and  chiefs  elected 
by  the  gentes. 

Among  the  Iroquois  the  person  elected  could  not  be- 
come a  chief  until  his  investiture  by  a  council  of  chiefs. 
As  the  chiefs  of  the  gentes  composed  the  council  of  the 
tribe,  with  power  over  conmion  interests,  there  was  a 
manifest  propriety  in  reserving  to  the  tribal  council  the 
function  of  investing  persons  with  office.  But  after  the 
confederacv  was   formed,    the    power   of   "raising   up" 


116  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

sachems  and  chiefs  was  transferred  from  the  council  of 
the  tribe  to  the  council  of  the  confederacy.  With  respect 
to  the  tribes  generally,  the  accessible  information  is  in- 
sufficient to  explain  their  usages  in  relation  to  the  mode 
of  investiture.  It  is  one  of  the  numerous  subjects  re- 
quiring further  investigation  before  the  social  system  of 
the  Indian  tribes  can  be  fully  explained.  The  office  of 
sachem  and  chief  was  universally  elective  among  the 
tribes  north  of  Mexico;  with  sufficient  evidence,  as  to 
other  parts  of  th.e  continent,  to  leave  no  doubt  of  the 
universality  of  the  rule. 

Among  the  Delawares  each  gens  had  one  sachem  ( Sa- 
ke'mii),  whose  office  was  hereditary  in  the  gens,  besides 
two  common  chiefs,  and  two  w^ar-chiefs — making  fifteen 
in  three  gentes — who  composed  the  council  of  the  tribe. 
Among  the  Ojibwas,  the  members  of  some  one  gens  usu- 
ally predominated  at  each  settlement.  Each  gens  had  a 
sachem,  whose  office  was  hereditary  in  the  gens,  and 
several  common  chiefs.  Where  a  large  number  of  per- 
sons of  the  same  gens  lived  in  one  locality  they  would 
be  found  similarly  organized.  There  was  no  prescribed 
limit  to  the  number  of  chiefs.  A  body  of  usages,  which 
have  never  been  collected,  undoubtedly  existed  in  the 
several  Indian  tribes  respecting  the  election  and  investi- 
ture of  sachems  and  chiefs.  A  knowledge  of  them  would 
be  valuable.  An  explanation  of  the  Iroquois  method  of 
"raising  up"  sachems  and  chiefs  will  be  given  in  the 
next  chapter. 

IV.     The  right  to  depose  these  sachems  and  chiefs. 

This  right  rested  primarily  with  the  gens  to  which  the 
sachem  and  chief  belonged.  But  the  council  of  the  tribe 
possessed  the  same  power,  and  could  proceed  independ- 
ently of  the  gens,  and  even  in  opposition  to  its  wishes. 
In  the  Status  of  savagery,  and  in  the  Lower  and  also  in 
the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism,  office  was  bestowed  for 
life,  or  during  good  behavior.  Mankind  had  not  learned 
to  limit  an  elective  office  for  a  term  of  years.  The  right 
to  depose,  therefore,  became  the  more  essential  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  principle  of  self-government.  This 
right  was  a  perpetual  assertion  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 


IROQUOIS  TRIBE  117 

gens  and  also  of  the  tribe ;  a  sovereignty  feebly  under- 
stood, but  nevertheless  a  reality. 

V.     The  possession  of  a  religions  faith  and  zi'orship. 

After  the  fashion  of  barbarians  the  American  Indians 
were  a  religious  people.  The  tribes  generally  held  reli- 
gious festivals  at  particular  seasons  of  the  year,  which 
were  observed  with  forms  of  worship,  dances  and  games. 
The  Medicine  Lodge,  in  many  tribes,  was  the  centre  of 
these  observances.  It  was  customary  to  announce  the 
holding  of  a  Medicine  Lodge  weeks  and  months  in  ad- 
vance to  awaken  a  general  interest  in  its  ceremonies.  The 
religious  system  of  the  aborigines  is  another  of  the  sub- 
jects which  has  been  but  partially  investigated.  It  is 
rich  in  materials  for  the  future  student.  The  experience 
of  these  tribes  in  developing  their  religious  beliefs  and 
mode  of  worship  is  a  part  of  the  experience  of  mankind ; 
and  the  facts  will  hold  an  important  place  in  the  science 
of  comparative  religion. 

Their  system  was  more  or  less  vague  and  indefinite, 
and  loaded  with  crude  superstitions.  Element  worship 
can  be  traced  among  the  principal  tribes,  with  a  tendency 
to  polytheism  in  the  advanced  tribes.  The  Iroquois,  for 
example,  recognized  a  Great,  and  an  Evil  Spirit,  and  a 
multitude  of  inferior  spiritual  beings,  the  immortality  of 
the  soul,  and  a  future  state.  Their  conception  of  the 
Great  Spirit  assigned  to  him  a  human  form ;  which  was 
equally  true  of  the  Evil  Spirit  of  He'-no,  the  Spirit  of 
Thunder,  of  Gd'-oh,  the  Spirit  of  the  Winds,  and  of  the 
Three  Sisters,  the  Spirit  of  Maize,  the  Spirit  of  the  Bean, 
and  the  Spirit  of  the  Squash.  The  latter  were  styled, 
collectively,  "Our  Life,"  and  also  "Our  Supporters." 
Beside  these  were  the  spirits  of  the  several  kinds  of  trees 
and  plants,  and  of  the  running  streams.  The  existence 
and  attributes  of  these  numerous  spiritual  beings  were 
but  feebly  imagined.  Among  the  tribes  in  the  Lower 
Status  of  barbarism  idolatry  was  unknown.'     The  Az- 

I  Near  the  close  of  the  last  century  the  Seneca-Iroquois,  at 
one  of  their  villages  on  the  Alleghany  river,  set  up  an  idol  of 
wood,  and  performed  dances  and  other  religious  ceremonies 
around  It.  My  informer,  the  late  William  Parker,  saw  this 
idol  in  the  river  into  which  it  had  been  cast.  Whom  It  person- 
ated he  did  not  learn. 


118  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

tecs  had  personal  gods,  with  idols  to  represent  them,  and 
a  temple  worship.  If  the  particulars  of  their  religious 
system  were  accurately  known,  its  growth  out  of  the 
common  beliefs  of  the  Indian  tribes  would  probably  be 
made  apparent. 

Dancing  was  a  form  of  worship  among  the  American 
aborigines,  and  formed  a  part  of  the  ceremonies  at  all 
religious  festivals.  In  no  part  of  the  earth,  among  bar- 
barians, has  the  dance  received  a  more  studied  develop- 
ment. Every  tribe  has  from  ten  to  thirty  set  dances ; 
each  of  which  has  its  own  name,  songs,  musical  instru- 
ments, steps,  plan  and  costume  for  persons.  Some  of 
them,  as  the  war-dance,  were  common  to  all  the  tribes. 
Particular  dances  are  special  property,  belonging  either 
to  a  gens,  or  to  a  society  organized  for  its  maintenance, 
into  which  new  members  w^ere  from  time  to  time  initi- 
ated. The  dances  of  the  Dakotas,  the  Crees,  the  Ojib- 
was,  the  Iroquois,  and  of  the  Pueblo  Indians  of  New 
Mexico,  are  the  same  in  general  character,  in  step,  plan, 
and  music ;  and  the  same  is  true  of  the  dances  of  the 
Aztecs  so  far  as  they  are  accurately  known.  It  is  one 
system  throughout  the  Indian  tribes,  and  bears  a  direct 
relation  to  their  system  of  faith  and  worship. 

VI.  A  supreme  government  through  a  council  of 
chiefs. 

The  council  had  a  natural  foundation  in  the  gentes  of 
whose  chiefs  it  was  composed.  It  met  a  necessary  want, 
and  was  certain  to  remain  as  long  as  gentile  society  en- 
dured. As  the  gens  was  represented  by  its  chiefs,  so  the 
tribe  was  represented  by  a  council  composed  of  the  chiefs 
of  the  gentes.  It  was  a  permanent  feature  of  the  social 
system,  holding  the  ultimate  authority  over  the  tribe. 
Called  together  under  circumstances  known  to  all,  held 
in  the  midst  of  the  people,  and  open  to  their  orators,  it 
was  certain  to  act  under  popular  influence.  Although 
oligarchical  in  form,  the  government  was  a  representa- 
tive democracy ;  the  representative  being  elected  for  life, 
but  subject  to  deposition.  The  brotherhood  of  the  mem- 
bers of  each  gens,  and  the  elective  principle  with  respect 
to  office,  were  the  germ  and  the  basis  of  the  democratic 


IROQUOIS  TRIBE  UJ 

principle.  Imperfectly  developed,  as  other  great  prin- 
ciples were  in  this  early  stage  of  advancement,  democ- 
racy can  boast  a  very  ancient  pedigree  in  the  tribes  of 
mankind. 

It  devolved  upon  the  council  to  guard  and  protect  the 
common  interests  of  the  tribe.  Upon  the  intelligence 
and  courage  of  the  people,  and  upon  the  wisdom  and 
foresight  of  the  council,  the  prosperity  and  the  existence 
of  the  tribe  depended.  Questions  and  exigencies  were 
arising,  through  their  incessant  warfare  with  other  tribes, 
which  required  the  exercise  of  all  these  qualities  to  meet 
and  manage.  It  was  unavoidable,  therefore,  that  the 
popular  element  should  be  commanding  in  its  influence. 
As  a  general  rule  the  council  was  open  to  any  private 
individual  who  desired  to  address  it  on  a  public  ques- 
tion. Even  the  women  were  allowed  to  express  their 
wishes  and  opinions  through  an  orator  of  their  own 
selection.  But  the  decision  was  made  by  the  council. 
Unanimity  was  a  fundamental  law  of  its  action  among 
the  Iroquois ;  but  whether  this  usage  was  general  I  am 
unable  to  state. 

Military  operations  were  usually  left  to  the  action  of 
the  voluntary  principle.  Theoretically,  each  tribe  was  at 
war  with  every  other  tribe  with  which  it  had  not  formed 
a  treaty  of  peace.  Any  person  was  at  liberty  to  organize 
a  war-party  and  conduct  an  expedition  wherever  he 
pleased.  He  announced  his  project  by  giving  a  war- 
dance  and  inviting  volunteers.  This  method  furnished 
a  practical  test  of  the  popularity  of  the  undertaking.  If 
he  succeeded  in  forming  a  company,  which  would  con- 
sist of  such  persons  as  joined  him  in  the  dance,  they  de- 
parted immediately,  while  enthusiasm  was  at  its  height. 
When  a  tribe  was  menaced  with  an  attack,  war-parties 
were  formed  to  meet  it  in  much  the  same  manner. 
Where  forces  thus  raised  were  united  in  one  bodv,  each 
was  under  its  own  war-captain,  and  their  joint  move- 
ments were  determined  by  a  council  of  these  captains.  If 
there  was  among  them  a  war-chief  of  established  repu- 
tation he  would  naturally  become  their  leader.  These 
statements  relate  to  tribes  in  the  Lx)wer  Status  of  barbar- 


120  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

ism.  The  Aztecs  and  Tlascalans  went  out  by  phratries, 
each  subdivision  under  its  own  captain,  and  distinguished 
by  costumes  and  banners. 

Indian  tribes,  and  even  confederacies,  were  weak  or- 
ganizations for  military  operations.  That  of  the  Iro- 
quois, and  that  of  the  Aztecs,  were  the  most  remarkable 
for  aggressive  purposes.  Among  the  tribes  in  the  Lower 
Status  of  barbarism,  including  the  Iroquois,  the  most 
destructive  work  was  performed  by  inconsiderable  war- 
parties,  which  were  constantly  forming  and  making  ex- 
peditions into  distant  regions.  Their  supply  of  food 
consisted  of  parched  corn  reduced  to  flour,  carried  in  a 
pouch  attached  to  the  belt  of  each  warrior,  with  such 
fish  and  game  as  the  route  supplied.  The  going  out  of 
these  war-parties,  and  their  public  reception  on  their 
return,  were  among  the  prominent  events  in  Indian  life. 
The  sanction  of  the  council  for  these  expeditions  was  not 
sought,  neither  was  it  necessary. 

The  council  of  the  tribe  had  power  to  declare  war  and 
make  peace,  to  send  and  receive  embassies,  and  to  make 
alliances.  It  exercised  all  the  powers  needful  in  a  gov- 
ernment so  simple  and  limited  in  its  affairs.  Intercourse 
between  independent  tribes  was  conducted  by  delegations 
of  wise-men  and  chiefs.  When  such  a  delegation  was 
expected  by  any  tribe,  a  council  was  convened  for  its  re- 
ception, and  for  the  transaction  of  its  business. 

\TI.  A  head-chief  of  the  tribe  in  some  instances. 

In  some  Indian  tribes  one  of  the  sachems  was  recog- 
nized as  its  head-chief;  and  as  superior  in  rank  to  his 
associates.  A  need  existed,  to  some  extent,  for  an  ofificial 
head  of  the  tribe  to  represent  it  when  the  council  was  not 
in  session ;  but  the  duties  and  powers  of  the  office  were 
slight.  Although  the  council  was  supreme  in  authority 
it  was  rarely  in  session,  and  questions  might  arise  de- 
manding the  provisional  action  of  some  one  authorized 
to  represent  the  tribe,  subject  to  the  ratification  of  his 
acts  by  the  council.  This  was  the  only  basis,  so  far  as 
the  writer  is  aware,  for  the  office  of  head-chief.  It  ex- 
isted in  a  number  of  tribes,  but  in  a  form  of  authority 
so  feeble  as  to  fall  below  the  conception  of  an  executive 


IROQUOIS  TRIBE  121 

magistrate.  In  the  language  of  some  of  the  early  writers 
they  have  been  designated  as  kings,  which  is  simply  a 
caricature.  The  Indian  tribes  had  not  advanced  far 
enough  in  a  knowledge  of  government  to  develop  the 
idea  of  a  chief  executive,  magistrate.  The  Iroquois  tribe 
recognized  no  head-chief,  and  the  confederacy  no  execu- 
tive officer.  The  elective  tenure  of  the  office  of  chief, 
and  the  liability  of  the  person  to  deposition,  settled  the 
character  of  the  office. 

A  council  of  Indian  chiefs  is  of  little  importance  by  it- 
self; but  as  the  germ  of  the  modern  parliament,  congress, 
and  legislature,  it  has  an  important  bearing  in  the  history 
of  mankind. 

The  growth  of  the  idea  of  government  commenced 
with  the  organization  into  gentes  in  savagery.  It  reveals 
three  great  stages  of  progressive  development  between 
its  commencement  and  the  institution  of  political  society 
after  civilization  had  been  attained.  The  first  stage  was 
the  government  of  a  tribe  by  a  council  of  chiefs  elected 
by  the  gentes.  It  may  be  called  a  government  of  one 
power ;  namely,  the  council.  It  prevailed  generally  among 
tribes  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism.  The  second 
stage  was  a  government  co-ordinated  between  a  council 
of  chiefs,  and  a  general  military  commander ;  one  rep- 
resenting the  civil  and  the  other  the  military  functions. 
This  second  form  began  to  manifest  itself  in  the  Lower 
Status  of  barbarism,  after  confederacies  were  formed, 
and  it  became  definite  in  the  Middle  Status.  The  office 
of  general,  or  principal  military  commander,  was  the 
germ  of  that  of  a  chief  executive  magistrate,  the  king, 
the  emperor,  and  the  president.  It  may  be  called  a  gov- 
ernment of  two  poivers,  namely,  the  council  of  chiefs, 
and  the  general.  The  third  stage  was  the  government 
of  a  people  or  nation  by  a  council  of  chiefs,  an  assembly 
of  the  people,  and  a  general  military  commander.  It  ap- 
peared among  the  tribes  who  had  attained  to  the  L^pper 
Status  of  barbarism  ;  such,  for  example,  as  the  Homeric 
Greeks,  and  the  Italian  tribes  of  the  period  of  Romulus. 
A  large  increase  in  the  number  of  people  united  in  a  na- 
tion, their  establishment  in  walled  cities,  and  the  crea- 


122  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

tion  of  wealth  in  lands  and  in  flocks  and  herds,  brought 
I'n  the  assembly  of  the  people  as  an  instrument  of  gov- 
ernment. The  council  of  chiefs,  which  still  remained, 
found  it  necessary,  no  doubt  through  popular  constraint, 
to  submit  the  most  im.portant  public  measures  to  an  as- 
sembly of  the  people  for  acceptance  or  rejection ;  whence 
the  popular  assembly.  This  assembly  did  not  originate 
measures.  It  was  its  function  to  adopt  or  reject,  and  its 
action  was  final.  From  its  first  appearance  it  became  a 
permanent  power  in  the  government.  The  council  no 
longer  passed  important  public  measures,  but  became  a 
pre-considering  council,  with  power  to  originate  and 
mature  public  acts,  to  which  the  assembly  alone  could 
give  validity.  It  may  be  called  a  government  of  three 
powers;  numely-,  the  pre-considering  council,  the  assembly 
of  the  people,  and  the  general.  This  remained  until  the 
institution  of  political  society,  when,  for  example,  among 
the  Athenians,  the  council  of  chiefs  became  the  senate, 
and  the  assembly  of  the  people  the  ecclesia  or  popular 
assembly.  The  same  organizations  have  come  down  to 
modern  times  in  the  two  houses  of  parliament,  of  con- 
gress, and  of  legislatures.  In  like  manner  the  office  of 
general  military  commander,  as  before  stated,  was  the 
germ  of  the  office  of  the  modern  chief  executive  mag- 
istrate. 

Recurring  to  the  tribe,  it  was  limited  in  the  numbers 
of  the  people,  feeble  in  strength,  and  poor  in  resources ; 
but  yet  a  completely  organized  society.  It  illustrates  the 
condition  of  mankind  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism. 
In  the  Middle  Status  there  was  a  sensible  increase  of 
numbers  in  a  tribe,  and  an  tmproved  condition :  but  with 
a  continuance  of  gentile  society  without  essential  change. 
Political  society  was  still  impossible  from  want  of  ad- 
vancement. The  gentes  organized  into  tribes  remained 
as  before ;  but  confederacies  must  have  been  more  fre- 
quent. In  some  areas,  as  in  the  Valley  of  Mexico,  larger 
numbers  were  developed  under  a  common  government, 
with  improvements  in  the  arts  of  life ;  but  no  evidence 
exists  of  the  overthrow  among  them  of  gentile  society 
and  the  substitution  of  political.  It  is  impossibly  ^o  iouncf 


IROQUOIS  TRIBE  198 

a  political  society  or  a  state  upon  gentes.  A  state  must 
rest  upon  territory  and  not  upon  persons,  upon  the  town- 
ship as  the  unit  of  a  political  system,  and  not  upon  the 
gens  which  is  the  unit  of  a  social  system.  It  required 
time  and  a  vast  experience,  beyond  that  of  the  American 
Indian  tribes,  as  a  preparation  for  such  a  fundamental 
change  of  systems.  It  also  required  m^en  of  the  mental 
stature  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  and  with  the  experi- 
ence derived  from  a  long  chain  of  ancestors  to  devise 
and  gradually  introduce  that  new  plan  of  government 
under  which  civilized  nations  are  living  at  the  present 
time. 

Following  the  ascending  organic  series,  we  are  next 
to  consider  the  confederacy  of  tribes,  in  which  the  gentes, 
phratries  and  tribes  will  be  seen  in  new  relations.  The 
remarkable  adaption  of  the  gentile  organization  to  the 
condition  and  wants  of  mankind,  while  in  a  barbarous 
state,  will  thereby  be  further  illustrated. 


CHAPTER   y 

TEE  IROQUOIS  COXFEDEUACY 

A  tendency  to  confederate  for  mutual  defense  would 
very  naturally  exist  among  kindred  and  contiguous 
tribes.  When  the  advantages  of  a  union  had  been  ap- 
preciated b}"  actual  experience  the  organization,  at  first 
a  league,  would  gradually  cement  into  a  federal  unity. 
The  state  of  perpetual  warfare  in  which  they  lived  would 
quicken  this  natural  tendency  into  action  among  such 
tribes  as  were  sufficiently  advanced  in  intelligence  and  in 
the  arts  of  life  to  perceive  its  benefits.  It  would  be  simply 
a  growth  from  a  lower  into  a  higher  organization  by 
an  extension  of  the  principle  which  united  the  gentes  in 
a  tribe. 

As  might  have  been  expected,  several  confederacies 
existed  in  different  parts  of  North  America  when  dis- 
covered, some  of  which  were  quite  remarkable  in  plan 
and  structure.  Among  the  number  may  be  mentioned 
the  Iroquois  Confederacy  of  five  independent  tribes,  the 
Creek  Confederacy  of  six,  the  Otawa  Confederacy  of 
three,  th.e  l^akota  League  of  the  "Seven  Council-Fires." 
the  Mocpii  Confederacy  in  Xew  Mexico  of  Seven  Pueb- 
los, and  the  Aztec  Confederacy  of  three  tribes  in  the 
Valley  of  Mexico.  It  is  probable  that  the  \^illage  Indi- 
ans in  other  parts  of  Mexico,  in  Central  and  in  South 
America,  were  quite  generally  organized  in  confederacies 
consisting  of  two  or  more  kindred  tribes.  Progress  nec- 
essarily took  this  direction  from  the  nature  of  their  in- 
stitutions, and  from  the  law  governing  their  develop- 
ment.    Nevertheless  the  formation  of  a  confederacy  out 

121 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY  125 

of  such  materials,  and  with  such  unstable  geographical 
relations,  \vas  a  difficult  undertaking.  It  was  easiest  of 
achievement  by  the  Village  Indians  from  the  nearness 
to  each  other  of  their  pueblos,  and  from  the  smallness 
of  their  areas ;  but  it  was  accomplished  in  occasional  in- 
stances by  tribes  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  and 
notably  by  the  Iroquois.  Wherever  a  confederacy  was 
formed  it  would  of  itself  evince  tlic  superior  intelligence 
of  the  people. 

The  two  highest  examples  of  Indian  confederacies  in 
North  America  were  those  of  the  Iroquois  and  of  the 
Aztecs.  From  their  acknowledged  superiority  as  military 
powers,  and  from  their  geographical  positions,  these  con- 
federacies, in  both  cases,  produced  remarkable  lesults. 
Our  knowledge  of  the  structure  and  principles  of  the 
former  is  definite  and  complete,  while  of  the  latter  it  is 
far  from  satisfactory.  The  Aztec  confederacy  has  been 
handled  in  such  a  manner  historically  as  to  leave  it  doubt- 
ful whether  it  was  simply  a  league  of  three  kindred 
tribes,  offensive  and  defensive,  or  a  systematic  confeder- 
acy like  that  of  the  Iroquois.  That  which  is  true  of  the 
latter  was  probablv  in  a  general  sense  true  of  the  for- 
mer, so  that  a  knowledge  nf  one  v.ill  tend  to  elucidate 
the  other. 

The  conditions  under  which  confederacies  spring  into 
being  and  the  principles  on  which  they  are  formed  are 
remarkablv  simple.  They  grow  naturally,  with  time,  out 
of  pre-existing  elements.  Where  one  tribe  had  divided 
into  several  and  these  subdivisions  occupied  independent 
but  contiguous  territories,  the  confederacy  re-integrated 
them  in  a  higher  organization,  on  the  basis  of  the  com- 
mon gentes  they  possessed,  and  of  the  affiliated  dialects 
they  spoke.  The  sentiment  of  kin  embodied  in  the  gens, 
the  common  lineage  of  the  gentes,  and  their  dialects 
still  mutuallv  intelligible,  \ielded  the  material  elements 
for  a  confederation.  The  confederacy,  therefore,  had 
the  gentes  for  its  basis  and  centre,  and  stock  language 
for  its  circumference.  Xo  one  has  l)een  found  that 
reached  beyond  the  bounds  of  the  dialects  of  a  common 
language.     If  this   natural  barrier  had  been  crossed   it 


126  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

would  have  forced  heterogeneous  elements  into  the  or- 
ganization. Cases  have  occurred  where  the  remains  of 
a  tribe,  not  cognate  in  speech,  as  the  Natchez,^  have 
been  admitted  into  an  existing  confederacy;  but  this 
exception  would  not  invalidate  the  general  proposition. 
It  was  impossible  for  an  Indian  power  to  arise  upon  the 
American  continent  through  a  confederacy  of  tribes  or- 
ganized in  gentes,  and  advance  to  a  general  supremacy 
unless  their  numbers  were  developed  from  their  own 
stock.  The  multitude  of  stock  languages  is  a  standing 
explanation  of  the  failure.  There  was  no  possible  way 
of  becoming  connected  on  equal  terms  with  a  confeder- 
acy excepting  through  membership  in  a  gens  and  tribe, 
and  a  common  speech. 

It^may  here  be  remarked,  parenthetically,  that  it  was 
impossible  in  the  Lower,  in  the  Middle,  or  in  the  Upper 
Status  of  barbarism  for  a  kingdom  to  arise  by  natural 
growth  in  any  part  of  the  earth  under  gentile  institu- 
tions. I  venture  to  make  this  suggestion  at  this  early 
stage  of  the  discussion  in  order  to  call  attention  more 
closely  to  the  structure  and  principles  of  ancient  society, 
as  organized  in  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes.  Monarchy 
is  incompatible  with  gentilism.  It  belongs  to  the  later 
period  of  civilization.  Despotisms  appeared  in  some  in- 
stances among  the  Grecian  tribes  in  the  Upper  Status  of 
barbarism ;  but  they  were  founded  upon  usurpation,  were 
considered  illegitimate  by  the  people,  and  were,  in  fact, 
alien  to  the  ideas  of  gentile  society.  The  Grecian  tyran- 
nies were  despotisms  founded  upon  usurpation,  and  were 
the  germ  out  of  which  the  later  kingdoms  arose ;  while 
the  so-called  kingdoms  of  the  heroic  age  were  military 
democracies,  and  nothing  more. 

The  Iroquois  have  furnished  an  excellent  illustration 
of  the  manner  in  which  a  confederacy  is  formed  by  nat- 
ural growth  assisted  by  skillful  legislation.  Originally 
emigrants  from  beyond  the  Mississippi,  and  probably  a 
branch  of  the  Dakota  stock,  thev  first  made  their  wav 


I   They  were  admitted  Into  the  Creek  Confederacy  after  their 
overthrow   by   the   Fr«>nrh, 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY  127 

to  the  valley  of  the  St.  Lawrence  and  settled  themselves 
near  Montreal.  Forced  to  leave  this  region  by  the  hostil- 
ity of  surrounding  tribes,  they  sought  the  central  region 
of  New  York.  Coasting  the  eastern  shore  of  Lake  On- 
tario in  canoes,  for  their  numbers  were  small,  they  made 
their  first  settlement  at  the  mouth  of  the  Oswego  river, 
w-here,  according  to  their  traditions,  they  remained  for 
a  long  period  of  time.  They  were  then  in  at  least  three 
distinct  tribes,  the  Mohawks,  the  Onondagas,  and  the 
Senecas.  One  tribe  subsequently  established  themselves 
at  the  head  of  the  Canandaigua  lake  and  became  the 
Senecas.  Another  tribe  occupied  the  Onondaga  A'alley 
and  became  the  Onondagas.  The  third  passed  eastward 
and  settled  first  at  Oneida  near  the  site  of  L^tica,  from 
which  place  the  main  portion  removed  to  the  Moliawk 
Valley  and  became  the  Mohawks.  Those  wdio  remained 
became  the  Oneidas.  A  portion  of  the  Onondagas  or 
Senecas  settled  along  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Cayuga 
lake  and  became  the  Cayugas.  Xew  York,  before  its 
occupation  by  the  Iroquois,  seems  to  have  been  a  part 
of  the  area  of  the  Algonkin  tribes.  According  to  Iro- 
quois traditions  they  displaced  its  anterior  inhabitants 
as  they  gradually  extended  their  settlements  eastward  to 
the  Hudson,  and  westward  to  the  Genesee.  Their  tradi- 
tions further  declare  that  a  long  period  of  time  elapsed 
after  their  settlement  in  Xew  York  before  the  confeder- 
acy was  formed,  during  which  they  made  common  cause 
against  their  enemies  and  thus  experienced  the  advan- 
tages of  the  federal  principle  both  for  aggression  and  de- 
fense. They  resided  in  villages,  which  were  usuallv 
surrounded  with  stockades,  and  subsisted  upon  fish  and 
game,  and  the  products  of  a  limited  horticulture.  In 
numbers  they  did  not  at  any  time  exceed  20,000  souls, 
if  they  ever  reached  that  number.  Precarious  subsist- 
ence and  incessant  warfare  repressed  numbers  in  all  the 
aboriginal  tribes,  including  the  Village  Indians  as  well. 
The  Iroquois  were  enshrouded  in  the  great  forests, 
which  then  overspread  New  York,  against  which  they 
had  no  power  to  contend.  They  were  first  discovered 
A.  D.  1608.     About  1675,  they  attained  their  culminat- 


138  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

ing  point  when  their  dominion  reached  over  an  area  re- 
markably large,  covering  the  greater  parts  of  New  York, 
Pennsylvania  and  Ohio/  and  portions  of  Canada  north  of 
Lake  Ontario.  At  the  time  of  their  discovery  they  were 
the  highest  representatives  of  the  Red  Race  north  of 
New  Mexico  in  intelligence  and  advancement,  though 
perhaps  inferior  to  some  of  the  Gulf  tribes  in  the  arts 
of  life.  In  the  extent  and  quality  of  their  mental  endow- 
ments they  must  be  ranked  among  the  highest  Indians  in 
America.  Although  they  have  declined  in  numbers 
there  are  still  four  thousand  Iroquois  in  New  York, 
about  a  thousand  in  Canada,  and  near  that  number  in  the 
West;  thus  illustrating  the  efhciency  as  well  as  persist- 
ency of  the  arts  of  barbarous  life  in  sustaining  existence. 
It  is  now  said  that  they  are  slowly  increasing. 

When  the  confederacy  was  formed,  about  A.  D.  1400- 
1450,^  the  conditions  previously  named  were  present. 
The  Iroquois  were  in  five  independent  tribes,  occupied 
territories  contiguous  to  each  other,  and  spoke  dialects 
of  the  same  language*  which  were  mutually  intelligible. 
Beside  these  facts  certain  gentes  were  common  in  the 
several  tribes  as  has  been  shown.  In  their  relations  to 
each  other,  as  separated  parts  of  the  same  gens,  these 
common  gentes  afiforded  a  natural  and  enduring  basis 
for  a  confederacy.  With  these  elements  existing,  the 
formation  of  a  confederacy  became  a  question  of  intel- 
ligence and  skill.  Other  tribes  in  large  numbers  were 
standing  in  precisely  the  same  relations  in  dififerent  parts 
of  the  continent  without  confederating.  The  fact  that 
the  Iroquois  tribes  accomplished  the  work  affords  evi- 
dence of  their  superior  capacity.  Moreover,  as  the  con- 
federacy was  the  ultimate  stage  of  organization  among 
the  American  aborigines  its  existence  would  be  expected 
in  the  most  intelligent  tribes  only. 

1  About  1651-5,  they  expeHed  their  kindred  tribes,  the  Erles, 
from  the  region  between  the  Genesee  river  and  Lake  Erie, 
and  shortly  afterwards  the  Neutral  Nations  from  the  Niagara 
river,  and  tlius  came  into  possession  of  the  remainder  oT  New 
York,  with  tlie  exception  of  tlio  lower  Hudson  and  Lonp  Island. 

2  The  Iroquois  claimed  that  it  had  existed  from  one  liundred 
and  fifty  to  two  hundred  years  wlien  they  first  saw  Europeans. 
The  generations  of  sachems  in  the  history  by  David  Cusik  (a 
Tuscarora)     would  make  it  more  ancient, 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY  129 

It  is  affirmed  by  the  Iroquois  that  the  confederacy  was 
formed  by  a  council  of  wise-men  and  chiefs  of  the  live 
tribes  which  met  for  that  purpose  on  the  north  shore  of 
Onondaga  lake,  near  the  site  of  Syracuse ;  and  that  be- 
fore its  session  was  concluded  the  organization  was  per- 
fected, and  set  in  immediate  operation.  At  their  periodi- 
cal councils  for  raising  up  sachems  they  still  explain  its 
origin  as  the  result  of  one  protracted  effort  of  legisla- 
tion. It  was  probably  a  consequence  of  a  previous  alli- 
ance for  naitual  defense,  the  advantages  of  which  they 
had  perceived  and  which  they  sought  to  render  perma- 
nent. 

The  origin  of  the  plan  is  ascribed  to  a  mythical,  or, 
at  least,  traditionary  person,  Hd-yo-zvcnt'-hd,  the  Hia- 
wath:i  of  Longfellow's  celebrated  poem,  who  was  pres- 
ent at  this  council  and  the  central  person  in  its  manage- 
ment. In  his  communications  with  tb.c  council  he  used 
a  wise-man  of  the  Onondagas,  Da-ga-no-zve'-da,  as  an 
interpreter  and  speaker  to  expound  the  structure  and 
principles  of  the  proposed  confederacy.  The  same  tradi- 
tion further  declares  that  when  the  work  was  accom- 
plished Hd-yo-zvent'-hd  miraculously  disappeared  in  a 
white  canoe,  which  arose  with  him  in  the  air  an-I  bore 
him  out  of  their  sight.  Other  prodigies,  according  to 
this  tradition,  attended  and  signalized  the  formation  of 
the  confederacy,  which  is  still  celebrated  among  them  as 
a  masterpiece  of  Indian  wisdom.  Such  in  truth  it  was ; 
and  it  will  remain  in  history  as  a  monument  of  their 
genius  in  developing  gentile  institutions.  It  will  also  be 
remembered  as  an  illustration  of  what  tribes  of  mankind 
have  been  able  to  accomplish  in  the  art  of  government 
while  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  and  under  the 
disadvantages  this  condition  implies. 

Which  of  the  two  persons  was  the  founder  of  the 
confederacy  it  is  difficult  to  determine.  The  silent  Hd- 
yo-zvcnt'-hd  was,  not  unlikely,  a  real  person  of  Iroquois 
lineage ;  ^    but  tradition  has    enveloped  his  character  so 


I    Mv   friend.   Horatio   Hale,   the   eminent   philologist,   came,   a» 
he  informed  me,  to  this  conclusion. 


l80  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

completely  in  the  supernatural  that  he  loses  his  place 
among  them  as  one  of  their  number.  If  Hiawatha  were 
a  real  person,  Da-gd-no-we'-dd  must  hold  a  subordinate 
place;  but,  if  a  mythical  person  invoked  for  the  occa- 
sion, then  to  the  latter  belongs  the  credit  of  planning  the 
confederacy. 

The  Iroquois  affirm  that  the  confederacy  as  formed  by 
this  council,  with  its  powers,  functions  and  mode  of  ad- 
ministration, has  come  down  to  them  through  many  gen- 
erations to  the  present  time  with  scarcely  a  change  in  its 
internal  organization.  When  the  Tuscaroras  were  sub- 
sequently admitted,  their  sachems  were  allowed  by 
courtesy  to  sit  as  equals  in  the  general  council,  but  the 
original  number  of  sachems  was  not  increased,  and  in 
strictness  those  of  the  Tuscaroras  formed  no  part  of 
the  ruling  body. 

The  general  featuies,  of  the  Iroquois  Confederacy  may 
be  summarized  in  the  following  propositions : 

I.  The  confederacy  was  a  union  of  Five  Tribes,  com- 
posed of  common  gentes,  under  one  government  on  the 
basis  of  equality ;  each  Tribe  remaining  independent  in 
all  manners  pertaining  to  local  self-government. 

II.  It  created  a  General  Council  of  Sachems,  who 
were  limited  in  number,  equal  in  rank  and  authority,  and 
invested  with  supreme  powers  over  all  matters  pertain- 
ing to  the  Confederacy. 

III.  Fifty  Sachemships  were  created  and  named  in 
perpetuity  in  certain  gentes  of  the  several  Tribes ;  with 
power  in  these  gentes  to  fill  vacancies,  as  often  as  they 
occurred,  bv  election  from  among  their  respective  mem- 
bers, and  with  the  further  power  to  depose  from  office 
for  cause ;  but  the  right  to  invest  these  Sachems  with 
office  was  reserved  to  the  General  Council. 

IV.  The  Sachems  of  the  Confederacy  were  also  Sa- 
chems in  their  respective  Tribes,  and  with  the  Chiefs  of 
these  Tribes  formed  the  Council  of  each,  which  was  su- 
preme over  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  Tribe  exclu- 
sively. 

V.  Unanimity  irr  the  Council  of  the  Confederacy  was 
made  essential  to  every  public  act. 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY  181 

VI  In  the  General  Council  the  Sachems  voted  by 
Tribes,  which  gave  to  each  Tribe  a  negative  upon  the 
others. 

VII.  The  Council  of  each  Tribe  had  power  to  con- 
vene the  General  Council ;  but  the  latter  had  no  power 
to  convene  itself. 

VIII.  The  General  Council  was  open  to  the  orators 
of  the  people  for  the  discussion  of  public  questions;  but 
the  Council  alone  decided. 

IX.  The  Confederacy  had  no  chief  Executive  Mag- 
istrate, or  official  head. 

X.  Experiencing  the  necessity  for  a  General  Military 
Commander  they  created  the  office  in  a  dual  form,  that 
one  might  neutralize  the  other.  The  two  principal  War- 
chiefs  created  were  made  equal  in  powers. 

These  several  propositions  will  be  considered  and  il- 
lustrated, but  without  following  the  precise  form  or  or- 
der in  which  they  are  stated. 

At  the  institution  of  the  confederacy  fifty  permanent 
sachemships  were  created  and  named,  and  made  per- 
petual in  the  gentes  to  which  they  were  assigned.  With 
the  exception  of  two,  which  were  filled  but  once,  they 
have  been  held  by  as  many  different  persons  in  succes- 
sion as  generations  have  passed  away  between  that  time 
and  the  present.  The  name  of  each  sachemship  is  also 
the  personal  name  of  each  sachem  while'  he  holds  the  of- 
fice, each  one  in  succession  taking  the  name  of  his  prede- 
cessor. These  sachems,  when  in  session,  formed  the 
council  of  the  confederacy  in  which  the  legislative,  ex- 
ecutive, and  judicial  powers  were  vested,  although  such 
a  discrimination  of  functions  had  not  come  to  be  made. 
To  secure  order  in  succession,  the  several  gentes  in  which 
these  offices  were  made  hereditary  were  empowered  to 
elect  successors  from  among  their  resf)ective  members 
when  vacancies  occurred,  as  elsewhere  explained.  As  a 
further  measure  of  protection  to  their  own  body  each 
sachem,  after  his  election  and  its  confirmation,  was  in- 
vested with  his  office  by  a  council  of  the  confederacy. 
When  thus  installed  his  name  was  "taken  away"  and 
that  of  the  sachemship'  was  bestowed  upon  him.    By  this 


182  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

name  he  was  afterwards  known  among  them.  They  were 
all  upon  equality  in  rank,  authority,  and  privileges. 

These  sachemships  were  distributed  unequally  among 
the  five  tribes ;  but  without  giving  to  either  a  preponder- 
ance of  power;  and  unequally  among  the  gentes  of  the 
last  three  tribes.  The  Mohawks  had  nine  sachems,  the 
Oneidas  nine,  the  Onondagas  fourteen,  the  Cayugas  ten, 
and  the  Senecas  eight.  This  was  the  number  at  first, 
and  it  has  remained  the  number  to  the  present  time,  A 
table  of  these  sachemships  is  subjoined,  with  their  names 
in  the  Seneca  dialect,  and  their  arrangement  in  classes 
to  facilitate  the  attainment  of  unanimity  in  council.  In 
foot-notes  will  be  found  the  signification  of  these  names, 
and  the  gentes  to  which  they  belonged. 

Table  of  sachemships  of  the  Iroquois,  founded  at  the 
institution  of  the  Confederacy ;  with  the  names  which 
have  been  borne  by  their  sachems  in  succession,  from  its 
formation  to  the  present  time : 

Mohazvks. 
I.     I.  Da-gii-e'-o-ga.  ^        2.  Ha-yo-went'-ha.  2       3.  Da- 

gii-no-we'-da.^ 
II.  4.  So-a-e-wa'ah.^      5.  Da-yo'-ho-go.^    6.  O-a-a'-go- 
wa.* 
III.  7.    Da-an-no-ga'-e-neh.  ^        8.    Sa-da'-ga-e-wa-deh.^ 
9.  Has-da-weh'-se-ont-ha.  ^ 

Onetdas. 
I.  Ho-das'-ha-teh.i<>    2.  Ga-no-gweh'-yo-do.  ^  ^    3-  Da* 
yo-ha-gwen-da.  '  ^ 
II.  4.  So-no-sase'.^2.     5.  To-no-a-ga'-o.^  ^    6.  Ha-de-a- 
dun-nent'-ha.^  ^ 
III.  7.  Da-wa-da'-o-da-yo.^*      8.  Ga-ne-a-dus'-ha-yeh.^' 

1  These  namos  sipnify  as  follows:  1.  "Neutral,"  or  "the 
Shield."  2.  "Man  who  Combs."  3.  "Inexhaustible."  4.  "Small 
Speech."  5.  "At  the  Forks."  6.  "At  the  Great  River."  7. 
"Dragging  his  Horns."  8.  "Even-Tempered."  9.  "Hanging  up 
Rattles."  Tlie  sachems  in  class  one  belonged  to  the  Turtle 
gens,  in  class  two  to  the  Wolf  gens,  and  in  class  three  to  the 
Bf-ar  gens. 

10.  "A  Man  bearing  a  Burden."  11.  "A  Man  covered  with 
Cat-tail  Down."  12.  "Opening  through  the  Woods."  13.  "A 
Long  String."  14.  "A  Man  Avith  a  Headache."  1.'.  "Swallowing 
Himself."      16.    "Place    of    the    Echo."      17.    "War-club     on     the 


fHE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY  138 

9.  Ho-wus'-ha-da-o.  ^  * 
Onofidagas. 
I.  I.  To-do-da'-ho.  1 3      2.  To-nes'-sa-ah.     3.  Da-at-ga- 

dose.-» 
II.  4.  Ga-nea-da'-je-wake  21    2.  Ah-Vva'-ga-yat.'^-  6.  Da- 
a-yat'-gvva-e. 

III.  7.  Ho-no-\ve-na'-to.2^ 

IV.  8.  Ga-\va-na'-san-do.i    9.  Ila-e'-ho. 2     10.  Ilo-yo-ne- 

a'-ne.^    11.  Sa-da'-kwa-seh.'* 
V.   12.  Sa-go-ga-ha'.^     13.  Ho-sa-ha'-ho.^    14.  Ska-no'- 
wun-de.' 

Cayiigas. 
I.   I.  Da-ga'-a-yo.8    2.  Da-je-no'da-weh-o.^     3.  Ga-da'- 
gwa-sa.i<>    4.  So-yo-Avase.' ^     5.  Ha-de-ils'- 
yo-no.^  2 
II.  6.  Da-yo-o-yo'-go.  1 3     ;.    fote-ho-wdi'-ko.i-*   8.   De- 
a-\vate'-ho.i  ^ 
III.  9.  To-da-e-ho'.^  ^    10.    Des-gil'-heh.^" 

Senecas. 
I.   I.  Ga-ne-o-di'-yci**    2.  Sa-da-ga'-o-yase.^ ^ 
II.  3.  Ga-no-gi'-e.2o    4.  Sa-geh'-jo-wa.^i 

III.  5.  Sa-de-a-no'-wus.2  2    5_  Xis-ha-ne-a'-nent.'^^ 

IV.  7.  Ga-no-go-e-da'-we.2  4    8.  Do-ne-ho-ga'-weh.^s 
Two  of  these  sachemships    have    been  filled  but  once 

since  their  creation.     Ha-xo-zcoif'-hci  and  Da-ca-no-zce'- 


Ground."  18.  "A  Man  Steaming  Himself."  The  sacliems  in  tlie 
first  class  belong  to  the  Wolf  gens,  in  the  second  to  tlie  Turtle 
gens,    and   in    the   third   to    the    Bear    gens. 

19.  "Tangled,"  Bear  gens.  20.  "On  tlie  Watch."  Bear  gens. 
This  sachem  and  the  one  before  him,  were  hereditary  council- 
ors of  the  To-do-dii'-ho,  wlio  held  the  most  illustrious  sacliem  - 
ship.  21.  "Bitter  Body,"  Snipe  gens.  22.  Turtle  gens.  23.  Tljis 
sachem   -svas   hereditary   keeper   of  the   wampum;   Wolf  gens. 

1,  Deer  gens.  2.  Deer  gens.  3.  Turtle  gens.  4.  Bear  gens. 
5.  "Having  a  Glimpse,"  Deer  gens.  6.  "Large  Mouth,"  Turtle 
gens.     7.  "Over  the  Creek,"  Turtle  gen.s. 

8.  "Man  Frightened,"  Deer  gens.  9.  Heron  gens.  10.  Bear 
gens.  11.  Bear  gens.  12.  Turtle  gens.  13.  Not  ascertained.  H. 
"Very  Cold,"  Turtle  gens.  15.  Heron  gens.  16.  Snipe  gens. 
17.   Snipe  gens. 

18.  "Handsome  Lake,"  Turtle  gens.  19.  "Level  Heavens." 
Snipe  gens.  20.  Turtle  gens.  21.  "Great  Forehead,"  Hawk  gens. 
22.  "Assistant,"  Bear  gens.  23.  "Falling  Day."  Snipe  gens.  24. 
"Hair   Burned  Off,"   Snipe   gens.     25.   "Open  Door,"  Wolf  gens. 


l84  ANCIENT  SOCtETY 

da  consented  to  take  the  office  among  the  Mohawk  sa- 
chems, and  to  leave  their  names  in  the  Hst  upon  condi- 
tion that  after  their  demise  the  two  should  remain  there- 
after vacant.  They  were  installed  upon  these  terms,  and 
the  stipulation  has  been  observed  to  the  present  day.  At 
all  councils  for  the  investiture  of  sachems  their  names 
are  still  called  with  the  others  as  a  tribute  of  respect  to 
their  memory.  The  general  council,  therefore,  consisted 
of  but  forty-eight  members. 

Each  sachem  had  an  assistant  sachem,  who  was  elected 
by  the  gens  of  his  principal  from  among  its  members, 
and  who  was  installed  with  the  same  forms  and  cere- 
monies. He  was  styled  an  "aid."  It  was  his  duty  to 
stand  behind  his  superior  on  all  occasions  of  ceremony, 
to  act  as  his  messenger,  and  in  general  to  be  subject 
to  his  directions.  It  gave  to  the  aid  the  office  of  chief, 
and  rendered  probable  his  election  as  the  successor  of  his 
principal  after  the  decease  of  the  latter.  In  their  figur- 
ative language  these  aids  of  the  sachems  were  styled 
"Braces  in  the  Long  House,"  which  symbolized  the  con- 
federacy. 

The  names  bestowed  upon  the  original  sachems  be- 
came the  names  of  their  respective  successors  in  per- 
petuity. For  example,  upon  the  demise  of  G'd-ne-o-di'- 
yo,  one  of  the  eight  Seneca  sachems,  his  successor  would 
be  elected  by  the  Turtle  gens  in  which  this  sachemship 
was  hereditary,  and  when  raised  up  by  the  general  coun- 
cil he  would  receive  this  name,  in  place  of  his  own,  as 
a  part  of  the  ceremony.  On  several  different  occasions 
I  have  attended  their  councils  for  raising  up  sachems 
both  at  the  Onondaga  and  Seneca  reservations,  and  wit- 
nessed the  ceremonies  herein  referred  to.  Although  but 
a  shadow  of  the  old  confederacy  now  remains,  it  is  fully 
organized  witii  its  complement  of  sachems  and  aids,  with 
the  exception  of  the  Mohawk  tribe  which  removed  to 
Canada  about  1775.  Whenever  vacancies  occur  their 
places  are  filled,  and  a  general  council  is  convened  to  in- 
stall the  new  sachems  and  their  aids.  The  present  Iro- 
quois are  also  perfectly  familiar  with  the  structure  and 
principles  of  the  ancient  confederacy. 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY  135 

For  all  purposes  of  tribal  government  the  five  tribes 
were  independent  of  each  other.  Their  territories  were 
separated  by  fixed  boundary  lines,  and  their  tribal  inter- 
ests were  distinct.  The  eight  Seneca  sachems,  in  con- 
junction with  the  other  Seneca  chiefs,  formed  the  coun- 
cil of  the  tribe  by  which  its  aflfairs  were  administered, 
leaving  to  each  of  the  other  tribes  the  same  control  over 
their  separate  interests.  As  an  organization  the  tribe 
was  neither  weakened  nor  impaired  by  the  confederate 
compact.  Each  was  in  vigorous  life  within  its  appropri- 
ate sphere,  presenting  some  analogy  to  our  own  states 
wdthin  an  embracing  republic.  It  is  worthy  of  remem- 
brance that  the  Iroquois  commended  to  our  forefathers 
a  union  of  the  colonies  similar  to  their  own  as  early  as 
1755.  They  saw  in  the  common  interests  and  common 
speech  of  the  several  colonies  the  elements  for  a  con- 
federation, which  was  as  far  as  their  vision  was  able  to 
penetrate. 

The  tribes  occupied  positions  of  entire  equality  in  the 
confederacy,  in  rights,  privileges  and  obligations.  Such 
special  immunities  as  were  granted  to  one  or  another 
indicate  no  intention  to  establish  an  unequal  compact,  or 
to  concede  unequal  privileges.  There  were  organic  pro- 
visions apparently  investing  particular  tribes  with  su- 
perior power ;  as,  for  example,  the  Onondagas  were  al- 
lowed fourteen  sachems  and  the  Senecas  but  eight ;  and 
a  larger  body  of  sachems  would  naturally  exercise  a 
stronger  influence  in  council  than  a  smaller.  But  in  this 
case  it  gave  no  additional  power,  because  the  sachems 
of  each  tribe  had  an  equal  voice  in  forming  a  decision, 
and  a  negative  upon  the  others.  When  in  council  they 
agreed  by  tribes,  and  unanimity  in  opinion  was  essential 
to  every  public  act.  The  Onondagas  were  made  "Keep- 
ers of  the  Wampum,"  and  "Keepers  of  the  Council 
Brand,"  the  Mohawks,  "Receivers  of  Tribute"  from  sub- 
jugated tribes,  and  the  Senecas  "Keepers  of  the  Door" 
of  the  Long  House.  These  and  some  other  similar  provi- 
sions were  made  for  the  common  advantage. 

The  cohesive  principle  of  the  confederacy  did  not 
spring  exclusively  from  the  benefits  of  an  alliance  for 


136  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

mutual  protection,  but  had  a  deeper  foundation  in  the 
bond  of  kin.  The  confederacy  rested  upon  the  tribes 
ostensibly,  but  primarily  upon  common  gentes.  All  the 
members  of  the  same  gens,  whether  Mohawks,  Oneidas, 
Onondagas,  Cayugas,  or  Senecas,  were  brothers  and 
sisters  to  each  other  in  virtue  of  their  descent  from  the 
same  common  ancestor;  and  they  recognized  each  other 
as  such  with  the  fullest  cordiality,  When  they  met  the 
first  inquiry  was  the  name  of  each  other's  gens,  and  next 
the  immediate  pedigree  of  their  respective  sachems ;  after 
which  they  were  usually  able  to  find,  under  their  peculiar 
system  of  consanguinity,  "^  the  relationship  in  which  they 
stood  to  each  other.  Three  of  the  gentes,  namely,  the 
Wolf,  Bear  and  Turtle,  were  common  to  the  five  tribes ; 
these  and  three  others  were  common  to  three  tribes.  In 
effect  the  Wolf  gens,  through  the  division  of  an  original 
tribe  into  five,  was  now  in  five  divisions,  one  of  which 
was  in  each  tribe.  It  was  the  same  with  the  Bear  and  the 
Turtle  gentes.  The  Deer,  Snipe  and  Hawk  gentes  were 
common  to  the  Senecas,  Cayugas  and  Onondagas.  Be- 
tween the  separated  parts  of  each  gens,  although  its  mem- 
bers spoke  different  dialects  of  the  same  language,  there 
existed  a  fraternal  connection  which  linked  the  nations 
together  with  indissoluble  bonds.  When  the  Mohawk 
of  the  Wolf  gens  recognized  an  Oneida,  Onondaga, 
Cayuga  or  Seneca  of  the  same  gens  as  a  brother,  and 
when  the  members  of  the  other  divided  gentes  did  the 
same,  the  relationship  was  not  ideal,  but  a  fact  founded 
upon  consanguinity,  and  upon  faith  in  an  assured  line- 
age older  than  their  dialects  and  coeval  with  their  unity 
as  one  people.  In  the  estimation  of  an  Iroquois  every 
member  of  his  gens  in  whatever  tribe  was  as  certainly  a 
kinsman  as  an  own  brother.  This  cross-relationship  be- 
tween persons  of  the  same  gens  in  the  different  tribes  is 

I  The  rliildrpn  of  brothers  are  tliemselves  brothers  and  sis- 
ters to  each  other,  the  chUdren  of  the  latter  were  also  brothers 
and  sisters,  and  so  downwards  Indefinitely;  the  clilldren  and 
descendants  of  sisters  are  tlie  same.  Tlie  children  of  a  brotlier 
and  sister  are  cousins,  tlie  cliildren  of  the  latter  are  cousins, 
and  so  downwards  indefinitely.  A  knowledge  of  the  relatlon- 
sialps  to  each  other  of  the  meinliers  of  the  same  gens  is  never 
lost 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY  137 

Still  preserved  and  recognized  among  them  in  all  its 
original  force.  It  explains  the  tenacity  with  which  the 
fragments  of  the  old  confederacy  still  cling  together. 
If  either  of  the  five  tribes  had  seceded  from  the  confed- 
eracy it  would  have  severed  the  bond  of  kin,  although 
this  would  have  been  felt  but  slightly.  But  had  they 
fallen  into  collision  it  would  have  turned  the  gens  of 
the  Wolf  against  their  gentile  kindred,  B'ear  against 
Bear,  in  a  word  brother  against  brother.  The  history  of 
the  Iroquois  demonstrates  tlie  reality  as  well  as  per- 
sistency of  the  bond  of  kin,  and  the  fidelity  with  which 
it  was  respected.  During  the  long-  period  through  which 
the  confederacy  endured,  they  never  fell  into  anarchy, 
nor  ruptured  the  organization. 

The  ''Long  House"  (Ho-de'-no-sote)  was  made  the 
symbol  of  the  confederacy ;  and  they  styled  themselves 
the  "People  of  the  Long  House"  (Ho-'de'-no-sau-nce). 
This  was  the  name,  and  the  only  name,  with  which  they 
distinguished  themselves.  The  confederacy  produced  a 
gentile  society  more  complex  than  that  of  a  single  tribe, 
but  it  was  still  distinctively  a  gentile  society.  It  was, 
however,  a  stage  of  progress  in  the  direction  of  a  na- 
tion, for  nationality  is  reached  under  gentile  institutions. 
Coalescence  is  the  last  stage  in  this  process.  The  four 
Athenian  tribes  coalesced  in  Attica  into  a  nation  by  the 
intermingling  of  the  tribes  in  the  same  area,  and  by  the 
gradual  disappearance  of  geographical  lines  between 
them.  The  tribal  names  and  organizations  remained  in 
full  vitality  as  before,  but  without  the  basis  of  an  inde- 
pendent territory.  When  political  society  was  instituted 
on  the  basis  of  the  deme  or  township,  and  all  the  resi- 
dents of  the  deme  became  a  body  politic,  irrespective  of 
their  gens  or  tribe,  the  coalescence  became  complete. 

The  coalescence  of  the  Latin  and  Sabine  gentes  into 
the  Roman  people  and  nation  was  a  result  of  the  same 
processes.  In  all  alike  the  gens,  phratry  and  tribe  were 
the  first  three  stages  of  organization.  The  confederacy 
followed  as  the  fourth.  But  it  does  not  appear,  either 
among  the  Grecian  or  Latin  tribes  in  the  Later  Period 
of  barbarism,  that  it  became  more  than  a  loose  league 


l88  ANCIENT  SOClETTf 

for  offensive  and  defensive  purposes.  Of  the  nature  and 
details  of  organization  of  the  Grecian  and  Latin  confed- 
eracies our  knowledge  is  limited  and  imperfect,  because 
the  facts  are  buried  in  the  obscurity  of  the  traditionary 
period.  The  process  of  coalescence  arises  later  than  the 
confederacy  in  gentile  society :  but  it  was  a  necessary  as 
well  as  vital  stage  of  progress  by  means  of  which  the 
nation,  the  state,  and  political  society  were  at  last  at- 
tained. Among  the  Iroquois  tribes  it  had  not  manifested 
itself. 

The  valley  of  Onondaga,  as  the  seat  of  the  central 
tribe,  and  the  place  where  the  Council  Brand  was  sup- 
posed to  be  perpetually  burning,  was  the  usual  though 
not  the  exclusive  place  for  holding  the  councils  of  the 
confederacy.  In  ancient  times  it  was  summoned  to  con- 
vene in  the  autumn  of  each  year ;  but  public  exigencies 
often  rendered  its  meetings  more  frequent.  Each  tribe 
had  power  to  summon  the  council,  and  to  appoint  the 
time  and  place  of  meeting  at  the  council-house  of  either 
tribe,  when  circumstances  rendered  a  change  from  the 
usual  place  at  Onondaga  desirable.  But  the  council  had 
no  power  to  convene  itself. 

Originally  the  principal  object  of  the  council  \Nas  to 
raise  up  sachems  to  fill  vacancies  in  the  ranks  of  the  rul- 
ing body  occasioned  by  death  or  deposition;  but  it  trans- 
acted all  other  business  which  concerned  the  common 
welfare.  In  course  of  time,  as  they  multiplied  in  num- 
bers and  their  intercourse  with  foreign  tribes  became 
more  extended,  the  council  fell  into  three  distinct  kinds, 
which  may  be  distinguished  as  Civil,  Mourning  and  Re- 
ligious. The  first  declared  war  and  made  peace,  sent 
and  received  embassies,  entered  into  treaties  with  foreign 
tribes,  regulated  the  affairs  of  subjugated  tribes,  and  took 
all  needful  measures  to  promote  the  general  welfare.  The 
second  raised  up  sachems  and  invested  them  with  office. 
It  received  the  name  of  Mourning  Council  because  the 
first  of  its  ceremonies  was  the  lament  for  the  deceased 
ruler  whose  vacant  place  was  to  be  filled.  The  third  was 
held  for  the  observance  of  a  general  religious  festival. 
It  was  made  an  occasion  for  the  confederated  tribes  to 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY  189 

unite  under  the  auspices  of  a  general  council  in  the  ob- 
servance of  common  religious  rites.  But  as  the  Mourn-» 
ing  Council  was  attended  with  many  of  the  same  cere- 
monies it  came,  in  time,  to  answer  for  both.  It  is  now 
the  only  council  they  hold,  as  the  civil  powers  of  the 
confederacy  terminated  with  the  supremacy  over  them 
of  the  state. 

Invoking  the  patience  of  the  reader,  it  is  necessary  to 
enter  into  some  details  with  respect  to  the  mode  of  trans- 
acting business  at  the  Civil  and  Mourning  Councils.  In 
no  other  way  can  the  archaic  condition  of  society  under 
gentile  institutions  be  so  readily  illustrated. 

If  an  overture  was  made  to  the  confederacy  by  a  for- 
eign tribe,  it  might  be  done  through  either  of  the  five 
tribes.  It  was  the  prerogative  of  the  council  of  the  tribe 
addressed  to  determine  whether  the  affair  was  of  suf- 
ficient importance  to  require  a  council  of  the  confeder- 
acy. After  reaching  an  affirmative  conclusion,  a  herald 
was  sent  to  the  nearest  tribes  in  position,  on  the  east 
and  on  the  west,  with  a  belt  of  wampum,  which  contained 
a  message  to  the  eflfect  that  a  civil  council  {Ho-de-os'- 
seh)  would  meet  at  such  a  place  and  time,  and  for  such 
an  object,  each  of  which  was  specified.  It  was  the  duty 
of  the  tribe  receiving  the  message  to  forward  it  to  the 
tribe  next  in  position,  until  the  notification  was  made 
complete.  *  No  council  ever  assembled  unless  it  was 
summoned  under  the  prescribed  forms. 

I  A  civil  council,  which  might  be  called  by  either  nation,  was 
usually  summoned  and  opened  In  the  following  manner:  If, 
for  example,  the  Onondagas  made  the  call,  they  would  send 
heralds  to  the  Oneldas  on  the  east,  and  the  Cayugas  on  the 
west  of  them,  with  belts  containing  an  Invitation  to  meet  at 
the  Onondaga  council-grove  on  such  a  day  of  such  a  moon, 
for  purposes  which  were  also  named.  It  would  then  become 
the  duty  of  the  Cayugas  to  send  the  same  notification  to  the 
Senecas,  and  of  the  Oneldas  to  notify  the  Mohawks.  If  the 
council  was  to  meet  for  peaceful  purposes,  then  each  sachem 
was  to  bring  with  him  a  bundle  of  fagots  of  white  cedar, 
typical  of  peace;  if  for  warlike  objects  then  the  fagots  were 
to   be   of   red   cedar,    emblematical   of   war. 

At  the  day  appointed  the  sachems  of  the  several  nations, 
with  their  followers,  who  usually  arrived  a  day  or  two  before 
and  remained  encamped  at  a  distance,  were  received  in  a 
formal  manner  by  the  Onondaga  sachems  at  the  rising  of  the 
sun.  They  marched  in  separate  processions  from  their  camp* 
to    the    Council-grove,    each    bearing    his    skin    robe    and    bundle 


140  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

When  the  sachems  met  in  council,  at  the  time  anc* 
place  appointed,  and  the  usual  reception  ceremony  had 
been  performed,  they  arranged  themselves  in  two  divi- 
sions and  seated  themselves  upon  opposite  sides  of  the 
council-fire.  Upon  one  side  were  the  Mohawk,  Onon- 
daga and  Seneca  sachems.     The  tribes  they  represented 


of  fagots,  where  the  Onondaga  sachems  awaited  them  with  a 
concourse  of  people.  The  sachems  then  formed  themselves  into 
a  circle,  an  Onondaga  sachem,  who  by  appointment  acted  as 
master  of  the  ceremonies,  occupying  the  side  toward  the  rising 
sun.  At  a  signal  they  marched  round  the  circle  moving  by  the 
north.  It  may  be  here  observed  that  the  rim  of  the  circle 
toward  the  north  is  called  the  "cold  side,"  {o-to'-wa-ga> ;  that 
on  the  west  "the  side  toward  the  setting  sun,"  (ha-ga-kwas'- 
gwa) ;  that  on  the  south  "the  side  of  the  high  sun,"  (en-de-ihV 
kwil) ;  and  that  on  the  east  "the  side  of  the  rising  sun,"  (t'-ka- 
gwit-kas'-gwa).  After  marching  three  times  around  on  the  cir- 
cle single  file,  the  head  and  foot  of  the  columm  being  joined,  the 
leader  stopped  on  the  rising  sun  side,  and  deposited  before 
him  his  bundle  of  fagots.  In  this  he  was  followed  by  the 
others,  one  at  a  time,  following  by  the  north,  thus  forming  an 
inner  circle  of  fagots.  After  this  each  sachem  spread  his  skin 
robe  in  the  same  order,  and  sat  down  upon  it,  cross-legged, 
behind  his  bundle  of  fagots,  with  his  assistant  sachem  stand- 
ing behind  him.  The  master  of  the  ceremonies,  after  a  mo- 
ment's pause,  arose,  drew  from  his  pouch  two  pieces  of  dry 
wood  and  a  piece  of  punk  with  which  he  proceeded  to  strike 
fire  by  friction.  When  fire  was  thus  obtained,  he  stepped  with- 
in the  circle  and  set  fire  to  his  own  bundle,  and  then  to  each  of 
the  others  in  the  order  in  which  they  were  laid.  When  they 
were  well  ignited,  and  at  a  signal  from  the  master  of  the  cer- 
emonies, the  saciiems  arose  and  marched  three  times  around 
the  Burning  Circle,  going  as  before  by  the  north.  Each  turned 
from  time  to  time  as  he  walked,  so  as  to  expose  all  sides  of 
his  person  to  the  warming  influence  of  the  fires.  This  typified 
that  they  warmed  their  affections  for  each  other  in  order  that 
they  might  transact  the  business  of  the  council  in  friendsliip 
and  unity.  They  then  reseated  themselves  each  upon  nis  own 
robe.  After  this  the  master  of  the  ceremonies  again  rising  to 
his  feet,  filled  and  lighted  the  pipe  of  peace  from  liis  own  fire. 
Diawing  three  whiffs,  one  after  the  other,  he  blew  the  first 
toward  the  zenith,  the  second  toward  the  ground,  and  the 
third  toward  the  sun.  By  the  first  act  he  returned  tlianks  to 
the  Great  Spirit  for  the  preservation  of  his  life  during  the 
past  year,  and  for  being  permitted  to  be  present  at  tliis  coun- 
cil. By  the  second,  he  returned  thanks  to  his  Mother,  the 
Earth,  for  her  various  productions  which  had  ministered  to 
his  sustenance.  And  by  the  third,  he  returned  thanks  to  the 
Sun  for  his  never-failing  light,  ever  shining  upon  all.  These 
words  were  not  repeated,  but  such  is  the  purport  of  the  acts 
themselves.  He  then  passed  the  pipe  to  the  first  upon  his  right 
toward  the  north,  who  repeated  the  same  ceremonies,  and  then 
pnssed  it  to  the  next,  and  so  on  around  the  burning  circle. 
The  ceremony  of  smoking  the  calumet  also  signified  tliat  they 
pledged    to    each    other    their   faith,    their   friendship,    and    their 

honor.  .  ^     ^,  1, 

These  ceremonies  completed  the  opening  of  the  council, 
whicli  was  then  declared  to  be  ready  for  the  business  upon 
which  it  had  been  convened. 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY  141 

were,  when  in  council,  brother  tribes  to  each  other  and 
father  tribes  to  the  other  two.  In  hke  manner  their  sa- 
chems were  brothers  to  each  other  and  fathers  to  those 
opposite.  They  constituted  a  phratry  of  tribes  and  of 
sachems,  by  an  extension  of  the  principle  which  united 
gentes  in  a  phratry.  On  the  opposite  side  of  the  fire  were 
the  Oneida  and  Cayuga,  and.  at  a  later  day,  the  Tus- 
carora  sachems.  The  tribes  they  represented  were  broth- 
er tribes  to  each  other,  and  son  tribes  to  the  opposite 
three.  Their  sachems  also  were  brothers  to  each  other, 
and  sons  of  those  in  the  opposite  division.  They  formed 
a  second  tribal  phratry.  As  the  Oneidas  were  a  subdi- 
vision of  the  Mohawks,  and  the  Cayugas  a  subdivision  of 
the  Onondagas  or  Senecas,  they  were  in  reality  junior 
tribes;  whence  their  relation  of  seniors  and  juniors,  and 
the  application  of  the  phratric  principle.  When  the 
tribes  are  named  in  council  the  ]\Iohawks  by  precedence 
are  mentioned  first.  Their  tribal  epithet  was  ''The 
Shield"  (Da- gd-e-o' -da).  The  Onondagas  came  next 
under  the  epithet  of  "Xame-Bearer"  (Ho-de-san-no'-ge- 
tii),  because  thev  had  been  appointed  to  select  and  name 
the  fifty  original  sachems.  ^  Next  in  the  order  of  pre- 
cedence were  the  Senecas,  under  the  epithet  of  "Door- 
Keeper"  {Ho-nan-ne-ho'-onte) .  They  were  made  per- 
petual keepers  of  the  western  door  of  the  Long  House. 
The  Oneidas,  under  the  epithet  of  "Great  Tree"  (Ne- 
ar'-dc-on-dar' -go-ivar) ,  and  the  Cayugas,  under  that  of 
"Great  Pipe"  (Sontts'-ho-gwar-fo-zcar),  were  named 
fourth  and  fifth.  The  Tuscaroras,  who  came  late  into 
the  confederacy,  were  named  last,  and  had  no  distin- 
guishing epithet.  Forms,  such  as  these,  were  more  im- 
portant in  ancient  society  than  we  would  be  apt  to  sup- 
pose. 

It  was  customary  for  the  foreign  tribe  to  be  repre- 
sented at  the  council  by  a  delegation  of  wise-men  and 
chiefs,   who  bore   their  proposition  and   presented   it   in 

I  Tradition  declares  that  the  Onondagas  deputed  a  wise-man 
to  visit  the  territories  of  the  tribes  and  select  and  name  the 
new  sachems  as  circumstances  should  prompt;  which  explains 
the  unequal  distribution  of  the  office  among  the  several  gentes. 


142  ANCIENT  SOCIETY  « 

person.  After  the  council  was  formally  opened  and  the 
delegation  introduced,  one  of  the  sachems  made  a  short 
address,  in  the  course  of  which  he  thanked  the  Great 
Spirit  for  sparing  their  lives  and  permitting  them  to 
meet  together;  after  which  he  informed  the  delegation 
that  the  council  was  prepared  to  hear  them  upon  the  af- 
fair for  which  it  had  convened.  One  of  the  delegates 
then  submitted  their  proposition  in  form,  and  sustained 
it  by  such  arguments  as  he  was  able  to  make.  Careful 
attention  was  given  by  the  members  of  the  council  that 
they  might  clearly  comprehend  the  matter  in  hand.  Af- 
ter the  address  was  concluded,  the  delegation  withdrew 
from  the  council  to  await  at  a  distance  the  result  of  its 
deliberations.  It  then  became  the  duty  of  the  sachems  to 
agree  upon  an  answer,  which  was  reached  through  the 
ordinary  routine  of  debate  and  consultation.  When  a 
decision  had  been  made,  a  speaker  was  appointed  to  com- 
municate the  answer  of  the  council,  to  receive  which  the 
delegation  were  recalled.  The  speaker  was  usually 
chosen  from  the  tribe  at  whose  instance  the  council  had 
been  convened.  It  was  customary  for  him  to  review  the 
whole  subject  in  a  formal  speech,  in  the  course,  of  which 
the  acceptance,  in  whole  or  in  part,  or  the  rejection  of 
the  proposition  were  announced  with  the  reasons  there- 
for. Where  an  agreement  was  entered  upon,  belts  of 
wampum  were  exchanged  as  evidence  of  its  terms.  With 
these  proceedings  the  council  terminated. 

"This  belt  preserves  my  words"  was  a  common  remark 
of  an  Iroquois  chief  in  council.  He  then  delivered  the 
belt  as  the  evidence  of  what  he  had  said.  Several  such 
belts  would  be  given  in  the  course  of  a  negotiation  to 
the  opposite  party.  In  the  reply  of  the  latter  a  belt  would 
be  returned  for  each  proposition  accepted.  The  Iroquois 
experienced  the  necessity  for  an  exact  record  of  some 
kind  of  a  proposition  involving  their  faith  and  honor  in 
its  execution,  and  they  devised  this  method  to  place  it 
beyond  dispute. 

Unanimity  among  the  sachems  was  required  upon  all 
public  questions,  and  essential  to  the  validity  of  every 
public  act.     It  was  a  fundamental  law  of  the  confeder- 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY  143 

acy.^  They  adopted  a  method  for  ascertaining  the  opini- 
ons of  the  members  of  the  council  which  dispensed  with 
the  necessity  of  casting  votes.  Moreover,  they  were 
entirely  unacquainted  with  the  principle  of  majorities 
and  minorities  in  the  action  of  councils.  They  voted  in 
council  by  tribes,  and  the  sachems  of  each  tribe  were 
required  to  be  of  one  mind  to  form  a  decision,  Recogniz- 
ing unanimity  as  a  necessary  principle,  the  founders  of 
the  confederacy  divided  the  sachems  of  each  tribe  into 
classes  as  a  means  for  its  attainment.  This  will  be  seen 
by  consulting  the  table,  (supra  p.  132.)  No  sachem  was 
allowed  to  express  an  opinion  in  council  in  the  nature 
of  a  vote  until  he  had  first  agreed  with  the  sacliem  or 
sachems  of  his  class  upon  the  opinion  to  be  expressed, 
and  had  been  appointed  to  act  as  speaker  for  the  class. 
Thus  the  eight  Seneca  sachems  being  in  four  classes 
could  have  but  four  opinions,  and  the  ten  Cayuga  sa- 
chems, being  in  the  same  number  of  classes,  could  have 
but  four.  In  this  manner  the  sachems  in  each  class  were 
first  brought  to  unanimity  among  themselves.  A  cross- 
consultation  was  then  held  between  the  four  sachems 
appointed  to  speak  for  the  four  classes ;  and  when  they 
had  agreed,  they  designated  one  of  their  number  to  ex- 
press their  resulting  opinion,  which  was  the  answer  of 
their  tribe.  When  the  sachems  of  the  several  tribes  had, 
by  this  ingenious  method,  become  of  one  mind  separ- 
ately, it  remained  to  compare  their  several  opinions,  and 
if  they  agreed  the  decision  of  the  council  was  made.  If 
they  failed  of  agreement  the  measure  was  defeated,  and 
the  council  was  at  an  end.  The  five  persons  appointed 
to  express  the  decision  of  the    five    tribes  may  possibly 


I  At  the  beginning  of  the  American  revolution  the  Iroquois 
were  unable  to  agree  upon  a  declaration  of  war  against  our 
confederacy  for  want  of  unanimity  in  council.  A  number  of 
the  Oneida  sachems  resisted  the  proposition  and  finally  refused 
their  consent.  As  neutrality  was  impossible  with  the  Mohawks 
and  the  Senecas  were  determined  to  fight,  It  was  resolved  that 
each  tribe  might  engage  In  the  war  upon  Its  own  responsl- 
blUtv.  or  remain  neutral.  The  war  against  the  Erles,  against 
the  Neutral  Nation  and  Susquehannocks,  and  the  several  wars 
against  the  French,  were  resolved  upon  In  general  council. 
Our  colonial  records  are  largely  filled  with  negotiations  with 
the  Iroquois  Confederacy, 


144  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

explain  the  appointment  and  the  functions  of  the  six 
electors,  so  called,  in  the  Aztec  confederacy,  which  will 
be  noticed  elsewhere. 

By  this  method  of  gaining  assent  the  equality  and  in- 
dependence of  the  several  tribes  were  recognized  and 
preserved.  If  any  sachem  was  obdurate  or  unreason- 
able, influences  were  brought  to  bear  upon  him,  through 
the  preponderating  sentiment,  which  he  could  not  well 
resist ;  so  that  it  seldom  happened  that  inconvenience  or 
detriment  resulted  from  their  adherence  to  the  rule. 
Whenever  all  efforts  to  procure  unanimity  had  failed, 
the  whole  matter  was  laid  aside  because  further  action 
had  become  impossible. 

The  induction  of  new  sachems  into  office  was  an  event 
of  great  interest  to  the  people,  and  not  less  to  the  sa- 
chems who  retained  thereby  some  control  over  the  in- 
troduction of  new  members  into  their  body.  To  perform 
the  ceremony  of  raising  up  sachems  the  general  council 
was  primarily  instituted.  It  was  named  at  the  time,  or 
came  afterwards  to  be  called,  the  Mourning  Council 
{Hen-nun-do-nnh'-seh),  because  it  embraced  the  twofold 
object  of  lamenting  the  death  of  the  departed  sachem 
and  of  installing  his  successor.  Upon  the  death  of  a  sa- 
chem, the  tribe  in  which  the  loss  had  occurred  had  power 
to  summon  a  general  council,  and  to  name  the  time  and 
place  of  its  meeting.  A  herald  was  sent  out  with  a  belt 
of  wampum,  usually  the  official  belt  of  the  deceased  sa- 
chem given  to  him  at  his  installation,  which  conveyed 
this  laconic  message; — "the  name"  (mentioning  that  of 
the  late  ruler)  "'calls  for  a  council."  It  also  announced 
the  day  and  place  of  convocation.  In  some  cases  the 
official  belt  of  the  sachem  was  sent  to  the  central  council- 
fire  at  Onondaga  immediately  after  his  burial,  as  a  noti- 
fication of  his  demise,  and  the  time  for  holding  the  coun- 
cil was  determined  afterwards. 

The  Mourning  Council,  with  the  festivities  which  fol- 
lowed the  investiture  of  sachems  possessed  remarkable 
attractions  for  the  Iroquois.  They  flocked  to  its  attend- 
ance from  the  most  distant  localities  with  zeal  and  en- 
thusiasm. It  was  opened  and  conducted  with  many  forms 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY  145 

and  ceremonies,  and  usually  lasted  five  days.  The  first 
was  devoted  to  the  prescribed  ceremony  of  lamentations 
for  the  deceased  sachem,  which,  as  a  religious  act,  com- 
menced at  the  rising  of  the  sun.  At  this  time  the  sa- 
chems of  the  tribe,  with  whom  the  council  was  held, 
marched  out  followed  by  their  tribesmen,  to  receive 
formally  the  sachems  and  people  of  the  other  tribes, 
who  had  arrived  before  and  remained  encamped  at  some 
distance  waiting  for  the  appointed  day.  After  exchang- 
ing greetings,  a  procession  was  formed  and  the  lament 
was  chanted  in  verse,  with  responses,  by  the  united  tribes, 
as  they  marched  from  the  place  of  reception  to  the  place 
of  council.  The  lament,  with  the  responces  in  chorus, 
was  a  tribute  of  respect  to  the  memory  of  the  departed 
sachem,  in  which  not  only  his  gens,  but  his  tribe,  and 
the  confederacy  itself  participated.  It  was  certainly  a 
more  delicate  testimonial  of  respect  and  affection  than 
would  have  been  expected  from  a  barbarous  people.  This 
ceremonial,  with  the  opening  of  the  council,  concluded 
the  first  day's  proceedings.  On  the  second  day,  the  in- 
stallation ceremony  commenced,  and  it  usually  lasted  into 
the  fourth.  The  sachems  of  the  several  tribes  seated 
themselves  in  two  divisions,  as  at  the  civil  council.  When 
the  sachem  to  be  raised  up  belonged  to  either  of  the 
three  senior  tribes  the  ceremony  was  performed  by  the 
sachems  of  the  junior  tribes,  and  the  new  sachem  was 
installed  as  a  father.  In  like  manner,  if  he  belonged  to 
either  of  the  three  junior  tribes  the  ceremony  was  per- 
formed by  the  sachems  of  the  senior  tribes,  and  the  new 
sachem  was  installed  as  a  son.  These  special  circum- 
stances are  mentioned  to  show  the  peculiar  character  of 
their  social  and  governmental  life.  To  the  Iroquois 
these  forms  and  figures  of  speech  were  full  of  signifi- 
cance. 

Among  other  things,  the  ancient  wampum  belts,  into 
which  the  structure  and  principles  of  the  confederacy 
"had  been  talked,"  to  use  their  expression,  were  pro- 
duced and  read  or  interpreted  for  the  instruction  of  the 
newly  inducted  sachem.  A  wise-man,  not  necessarily  one 
of  the  sachems,  took  these  belts  one  after  the  other  auid 


146  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

walking-  to  and  fro  between  the  two  divisions  of  sachems, 
read  from  them  the  facts  which  they  recorded.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Indian  conception,  these  belts  can  tell,  by- 
means  of  an  interpreter,  the  exact  rule,  provision  or 
transaction  talked  into  them  at  the  time,  and  of  which 
they  were  the  exclusive  record.  A  strand  of  wampum 
consisting  of  strings  of  purple  and  white  shell  beads,  or 
a  belt  woven  with  figures  formed  by  beads  of  different 
colors,  operated  on  the  principle  of  associating  a  partic- 
ular fact  with  a  particular  string  or  figure ;  thus  giving  a 
serial  arrangement  to  the  facts  as  well  as  fidelity  to  the 
memory.  These  strands  and  belts  of  wampum  were  the 
only  visible  records  of  the  Iroquois ;  but  they  required 
those  trained  interpreters  who  could  draw  from  their 
strings  and  figures  the  records  locked  up  in  their  re- 
membrance. One  of  the  Onondaga  sachems  (Ho-no- 
we-na'-to)  was  made  "Keeper  of  the  Wampum,"  and 
two  aids  were  raised  up  with  him  who  were  required  to 
be  versed  in  its  interpretation  as  well  as  the  sachem.  The 
interpretation  of  these  several  belts  and  strings  brought 
out,  in  the  address  of  the  wise-man,  a  connected  account 
of  the  occurrences  at  the  formation  of  the  confederacy. 
The  tradition  was  repeated  in  full,  and  fortified  in  its 
essential  parts  by  reference  to  the  record  contained  in 
these  belts.  Thus  the  council  to  raise  up  sachems  be- 
came a  teaching  council,  which  maintained  in  perpetual 
freshness  in  the  minds  of  the  Iroquois  the  structure  and 
principles  of  the  confederacy,  as  well  as  the  history  of 
its  fonnation.  These  proceedings  occupied  the  council 
until  noon  each  day ;  the  afternoon  being  devoted  to 
games  and  amusements.  At  twilight  each  day  a  dinner 
in  common  was  served  to  the  entire  body  in  attendance. 
It  consisted  of  soup  and  boiled  meat  cooked  near  the 
council-house,  and  served  directly  from  the  kettle  in 
wooden  bowls,  trays  and  ladles.  Grace  was  said  before 
the  feast  commenced.  It  was  a  prolonged  exclamation 
by  a  single  person  on  a  high  shrill  note,  falling  down  in 
cadences  into  stillness,  followed  by  a  response  in  chorus 
by  the  people.  ,  The  evenings  were  devoted  to  the  dance. 
With  these  ceremonies,  continued  for  several  days,  and 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY  147 

with  the  festivities  that  followed,  their  sachems  were  in- 
ducted into  office. 

By  investing  their  sachems  with  office  through  a  gen- 
eral council,  the  framers  of  the  confederacy  had  iti  view 
the  threefold  object  of  a  perpetual  succession  in  the  gens, 
the  benefits  of  a  free  election  among  its  members,  and  a 
final  supervision  of  the  choice  through  the  ceremony  of 
investiture.  To  render  the  latter  effective  it  should 
carry  with  it  the  power  to  reject  the  nominee.  Whether 
the  right  to  invest  was  purely  functional,  or  carried  with 
it  the  right  to  exclude,  I  am  unable  to  state.  No  case 
of  rejection  is  mentioned.  The  scheme  adopted  by  the 
Iroquois  to  maintain  a  ruling  body  of  sachems  may 
claim,  in  several  respects,  thQ  merit  of  originality,  as 
well  as  of  adaptation  to  their  condition.  In  form  an 
oligarchy,  taking  this  term  in  its  best  sense,  it  was  yet 
a  representative  democracy  of  the  archaic  type.  A  pow- 
erful popular  element  pervaded  the  whole  organism  and 
influenced  its  action.  It  is  seen  in  the  right  of  the  gen- 
tes  to  elect  and  depose  their  sachems  and  chiefs,  in  the 
right  of  the  people  to  be  heard  in  council  through  orators 
of  their  own  selection,  and  in  the  voluntary  system  in 
the  military  service.  In  this  and  the  next  succeeding 
ethnical  period  democratic  principles  were  the  vital  ele- 
ment of  gentile  society. 

The  Iroquois  name  for  a  sachem  ( Ho-yar-na-go'- 
war),  which  signifies  "a  counselor  of  the  people,"  was 
singularly  appropriate  to  a  ruler  in  a  species  of  free  de- 
mocracy. It  not  only  defines  the  office  well,  but  it  also 
suggests  the  analogous  designation  of  the  members  of 
the  Grecian  council  of  chiefs.  The  Grecian  chiefs  were 
styled  "councilors  of  the  people."  ^  From  the  nature  and 
tenure  of  the  office  among  the  Iroquois  the  sachems  were 
not  masters  ruling  by  independent  right,  but  representa- 
tives holding  from  the  gentes  by  free  election.  It  is 
worthy  of  notice  that  an  office  which  originated  in  savag- 
ery, and  continued  through  the  three  sub-periods  of  bar- 


I   .Eschylus.    "Thp   Seven   against   Thebes,"    1005. 


148"  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

barism,  should  reveal  so  much  of  its  archaic  character 
among  the  Greeks  after  the  gentile  organization  had  car- 
ried this  portion  of  the  human  family  to  the  confines  of 
civilization.  It  shows  further  how  deeply  inwrought  in 
the  human  mind  the  principle  of  democracy  had  become 
under  gentilism. 

The  designation  for  a  chief  of  the  second  grade,  Ha- 
sa-no-iva  na,  "an  elevated  name,"  indicates  an  apprecia- 
tion by  barbarians  of  the  ordinary  motives  for  personal 
ambition.  It  also  reveals  the  sameness  of  the  nature  of 
man,  whether  high  up  or  low  down  upon  the  rounds  of 
the  ladder  of  progress.  The  celebrated  orators,  wise- 
men,  and  war-chiefs  of  the  Iroquois  were  chiefs  of  the 
second  grade  almost  without  exception.  One  reason  for 
this  may  be  found  in  the  organic  provision  which  con- 
fined the  duties  of  the  sachem  to  the  affairs  of  peace.  An- 
other may  have  been  to  exclude  from  the  ruling  body 
their  ablest  men,  lest  their  ambitious  aims  should  disturb 
its  action.  As  the  office  of  chief  was  bestowed  in  re- 
ward of  merit,  it  fell  necessarily  upon  their  ablest  men. 
Red-Jacket,  Brandt,  Garangula,  Cornplanter,  Farmer's 
Brother,  Frost,  Johnson,  and  other  well  known  Iroquois, 
were  chiefs  as  distinguished  from  sachems.  None  of  the 
long  lines  of  sachems  have  become  distinguished  in  Ame- 
rican annals,  with  the  exception  of  Logan,'  Handsome 
Lake,'  and  at  a  recent  day,  Ely  S.  Parker.'  The  re- 
mainder have  left  no  remembrance  behind  them  extend- 
ing beyond  the  Iroquois. 

At  the  time  the  confederacy  was  formed  To-do-dd'-ho 
was  the  most  prominent  and  influential  of  the  Onondaga 
chiefs.  His  accession  to  the  plan  of  a  confederacy,  in 
which  he  would  experience  a  diminution  of  power,  was 
regarded  as  highly  meritorious.  He  was  raised  up  as 
one  of  the  Ononadaga  sachems  and  his  name  placed  first 
in  the  list.  Two  assistant  sachems  were  raised  up  with 
him  to  act  as  his  aids  and  to  stand  behind  him  on  public 

'   Onp  of  tlio  CaytiRa  saclicins. 

=  Ono  of  tho  Senpca  saclicms,  and  the  founder  of  the  New  Religion 
of  the    Irofjiiois. 

*  One  of  the  Seneca  sachems. 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY  149 

occasions.  Thus  dignified,  this  sachemship  has  since  been 
regarded  by  the  Iroquois  as  the  most  illustrious  of  the 
forty-eight,  from  the  services  rendered  by  the  first  To- 
do-da'-ho.  The  circumstance  was  early  seized  upon  by 
the  inquisitive  colonists  to  advance  the  person  who  held 
this  office  to  the  position  of  king  of  the  Iroquois;  but 
the  misconception  was  refuted,  and  the  institutions  of  the 
Iroquois  were  relieved  of  the  burden  of  an  impossible 
feature.  In  the  general  council  he  sat  among  his  equals. 
The  confederacy  had  no  chief  executive  magistrate. 

Under  a  confederacy  of  tribes  the  office  of  general, 
(Hos-ga-a-geh'-da-go-wa)  "Great  War  Soldier,"  makes 
its  first  appearance.  Cases  would  now  arise  when  the 
several  tribes  in  their  confederate  capacity  would  be  en- 
gaged in  war ;  and  the  necessity  for  a  general  commander 
to  direct  the  movements  of  the  united  bands  would  be 
felt.  The  introduction  of  this  office  as  a  permanent  feat- 
ure in  the  government  was  a  great  event  in  the  history 
of  human  progress.  It  was  the  beginning  of  a  differen- 
tiation of  the  military  from  the  civil  power,  which,  when 
completed,  changed  essentially  the  external  manifesta- 
tion of  the  government.  But  even  in  later  stages  of  prog- 
ress, when  the  military  spirit  predominated,  the  essential 
character  of  the  government  was  not  changed.  Gentil- 
ism  arrested  usurpation.  With  the  rise  of  the  office  of 
general,  the  government  was  gradually  changed  from  a 
government  of  one  power,  into  a  government  of  two 
powers.  The  functions  of  government  became,  in  course 
of  time,  co-ordinated  between  the  two.  This  new  office 
was  the  germ  of  that  of  a  chief  executive  magistrate; 
for  out  of  the  general  came  the  king,  the  emperor,  and 
the  president,  as  elsewhere  suggested.  The  office  sprang 
from  the  military  necessities  of  society,  and  had  a  logical 
development.  For  this  reason  its  first  appearance  and 
subsequent  growth  have  an  important  place  in  this  dis- 
cussion. In  the  course  of  this  volume  I  shall  attempt  to 
trace  the  progressive  development  of  this  office,  from  the 
Great  War  Soldier  of  the  Iroquois  through  the  Teuctli 
of  the  Aztecs,  to  the  Basileus  of  the  Grecian,  and  the  Rex 
of  the  Roman  tribes ;  among  all  of  whom,  through  three 


150  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

successive  ethnical  periods,  the  office  was  the  same,  nanw 
ly,  that  of  a  general  in  a  military  democracy.  Among 
the  Iroquois,  the  Aztecs,  and  the  Romans  the  office  was 
elective,  or  confirmative,  by  a  constituency.  Presump- 
tively, it  was  the  same  among  the  Greeks  of  the  tradi- 
tionary period.  It  is  claimed  that  the  office  of  basilens 
among  the  Grecian  tribes  in  the  Homeric  period  was 
hereditary  from  father  to  son.  This  is  at  least  doubtful. 
It  is  such  a  wide  and  total  departure  from  the  original 
tenure  of  the  office  as  to  require  positive  evidence  to 
establish  the  fact.  An  election,  or  confirmation  by  a  con- 
stituency, w'ould  still  be  necessary  under  gentile  institu- 
tions. If  in  numerous  instances  it  were  known  that  the 
office  had  passed  from  father  to  son  this  might  have  sug- 
gested the  inference  of  hereditary  succession,  now 
adopted  as  historically  true,  while  succession  in  this  form 
did  not  exist.  Unfortunately,  an  intimate  knowledge  of 
the  organization  and  usages  of  society  in  the  tradition- 
ary period  is  altogether  wanting.  Great  principles  of 
human  action  furnish  the  safest  guide  when  their  opera- 
tion must  have  been  necessary.  It  is  far  more  probable 
that  hereditary  succession,  w^hen  it  first  came  in,  was 
established  by  force,  than  by  the  free  consent  of  the  peo- 
ple ;  and  that  it  did  not  exist  among  the  Grecian  tribes 
in  the  Homeric  period. 

When  the  Iroquois  confederacy  was  formed,  or  soon 
after  that  event,  two  permanent  w^ar-chie^hips  were  cre- 
ated and  named,  and  both  were  assigned  to  the  Seneca 
tribe.  One  of  them  (Ta-zi'an'-ne-ars,  signifying  needle- 
breaker)  w-as  made  hereditary  in  the  Wolf,  and  the  other 
(So-no'-so-wd,  signifying  great  oyster  shell)  in  the  Tur- 
tle gens.  The  reason  assigned  for  giving  them  both  to  the 
Senecas  was  the  greater  danger  of  attack  at  the  west  end 
of  their  territories.  They  were  elected  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  the  sachems,  were  raised  up  by  a  general  council, 
and  were  equal  in  rank  and  pow-er.  Another  account 
states  that  they  were  created  later.  They  discovered  im- 
mediately after  the  confederacy  was  formed  that  the 
structure  of  the  Long  House  was  incomplete  because 
there  were  no  officers  to  execute  the  militarv  commands 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY  15I 

of  the  confederacy.  A  council  was  convened  to  remedy 
the  omission,  which  established  the  two  perpetual  war- 
chiefs  named.  As  general  commanders  they  had  charge 
of  the  military  affairs  of  the  confederacy,  and  the  com- 
mand of  its  joint  forces  when  united  in  a  general  expe- 
dition. Governor  Blacksnake,  recently  deceased,  held 
the  office  first  named,  thus  showing  that  the  succession 
has  been  regularly  maintained.  The  creation  of  two  prin- 
cipal war-chiefs  instead  of  one,  and  with  equal  powers, 
argues  a  subtle  and  calculating  policy  to  prevent  the  dom- 
ination of  a  single  man  even  in  their  military  affairs. 
They  did  without  experience  precisely  as  the  Romans 
did  in  creating  two  consuls  instead  of  one,  after  they 
had  abolished  the  office  of  rex.  Two  consuls  would  bal- 
ance the  military  power  between  them,  and  prevent  either 
from  becoming  supreme.  Among  the  Iroquois  this  office 
never  became  influential. 

In  Indian  Ethnography  the  subjects  of  primary  im- 
portance are  the  gens,  phratry,  tribe  and  confederacy. 
They  exhibit  the  organization  of  society.  Next  to  these 
are  the  tenure  and  functions  of  the  office  of  sachem  and 
chief,  the  functions  of  the  council  of  chiefs,  and  the  ten- 
ure and  functions  of  the  office  of  principal  war-chief. 
^^'hen  these  are  ascertained,  the  structure  and  principles 
of  their  governmental  system  will  be  known.  A  knowl- 
edge of  their  usages  and  customs,  of  their  arts  and  in- 
ventions, and  of  their  plan  of  life  will  then  fill  out  the 
picture.  In  the  work  of  American  investigators  too 
little  attention  has  been  given  to  the  former.  They 
still  afford  a  rich  field  in  which  much  information 
may  be  gathered.  Our  knowledge,  which  is  now 
general,  should  be  made  minute  and  comparative. 
The  Indian  tribes  in  the  Lower,  and  in  the  Middle  Status 
of  barbarism,  represent  two  of  the  great  stages  of  prog- 
ress from  savagery  to  civilization.  Our  own  remote 
forefathers  passed  through  the  same  conditions,  one  after 
the  other,  and  possessed,  there  can  scarcely  be  a  doubt, 
the  same,  or  very  similar  institutions,  with  many  of  the 
same  usages  and  customs.  However  little  we  may  be  inter- 
ested in   the   American   Indians  personally,   their  expe- 


152  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

rience  touches  us  more  nearly,  as  an  exemplification  of 
the  experience  of  our  own  ancestors.  Our  primary  in- 
stitutions root  themselves  in  a  prior  gentile  society  in 
which  the  gens,  phratry  and  tribe  were  the  organic  series, 
and  in  which  the  council  of  chiefs  was  the  instrument  of 
government.  The  phenomena  of  their  ancient  society 
must  have  presented  many  points  in  common  with  that 
of  the  Iroquois  and  other  Indian  tribes.  This  view  of 
the  matter  lends  an  additional  interest  to  the  comparative 
institutions  of  mankind. 

The  Iroquois  confederacy  is  an  excellent  exemplifica- 
tion of  a  gentile  society  under  this  form  of  organization. 
It  seems  to  realize  all  the  capabilities  of  gentile  institu- 
tions in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism  ;  leaving  an  oppor- 
tunity for  further  development,  but  no  subsequent  plan 
of  government  until  the  institutions  of  political  society, 
founded  upon  territory  and  upon  property,  with  the 
establishment  of  which  the  gentile  organization  would  be 
overthrown.  The  intermediate  stages  were  transitional, 
remaining  military  democracies  to  the  end,  except  where 
tyrannies  founded  upon  usurpation  were  temporarily  es- 
tablished in  their  places.  The  condeferacy  of  the  Iro- 
quois was  essentially  democratical ;  because  it  was  com- 
posed of  gentes  each  of  which  v^^as  organized  upon  the 
common  principles  of  democracy,  not  of  the  highest  but 
of  the  primitive  type,  and  because  the  tribes  reserved  the 
right  of  local  self-government.  They  conquered  other 
tribes  and  held  them  in  subjection,  as  for  example  the 
Delawares ;  but  the  latter  remained  under  the  govern- 
ment of  their  own  chiefs,  and  added  nothing  to  the 
strength  of  the  confederacy.  It  was  impossible  in  this 
state  of  society  to  unite  tribes  under  one  government  who 
spoke  different  languages,  or  to  hold  conquered  tribes 
under  tribute  with  any  benefit  but  the  tribute. 

This  exposition  of  the  Iroquois  confederacy  is  far  from 
exhaustive  of  the  facts,  but  it  has  been  carried  far 
enough  to  answer  bv  present  object.  The  Iroquois  were 
a  vigorous  and  intelligent  peo])le,  with  a  brain  approach- 
ing in  volume  the  Aryan  average.  Eloquent  in  oratory, 
vindictive  in  war,  and  indomitable  in  perseverance,  they 


THE  IROQUOIS  CONFEDERACY  153 

have  gained  a  place  in  history.  If  their  military  achieve- 
ments are  dreary  with  the  atrocities  of  savage  warfare, 
they  have  illustrated  some  of  the  highest  virtues  of  man- 
kind in  their  relations  with  each  other.  The  confederacy 
which  they  organized  must  be  regarded  as  a  remarkable 
production  of  wisdom  and  sagacity.  One  of  its  avowed 
objects  was  peace ;  to  remove  the  cause  of  strife  by  unit- 
ing their  tribes  under  one  government,  and  then  extend- 
ing it  by  incorporating  other  tribes  of  the  same  name  and 
lineage.  They  urged  the  Eries  and  the  Neutral  Nation 
to  become  members  of  the  confederacy,  and  for  their  re- 
fusal expelled  them  from  their  borders.  Such  an  insight 
into  the  highest  objects  of  government  is  creditable  to 
their  intelligence.  Their  numbers  were  small,  but  they 
counted  in  their  ranks  a  large  number  of  able  men.  This 
proves  the  high  grade  of  the  stock. 

From  their  position  land  military  strength  they  exer- 
cised a  marked  influence  upon  the  course  of  events  be- 
tween the  English  and  the  French  in  their  competition 
for  supremacy  in  North  America.  As  the  two  were 
nearly  equal  in  power  and  resources  during  the  first  cen- 
tury of  colonization,  the  French  may  ascribe  to  the  Iro- 
quois, in  no  small  degree  the  overthrow  of  their  plans 
of  empire  in  the  New  World. 

With  a  knowledge  of  the  gens  in  its  archaic  form  and 
of  its  capabilities  as  the  unit  of  a  social  system,  we  shall 
be  better  able  to  understand  the  gentes  of  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  yet  to  be  considered.  The  same  scheme  of  gov- 
ernment composed  of  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes  in  a 
gentile  society  will  be  found  among  them  as  they  stood 
at  the  threshold  of  civilization,  with  the  superadded  ex- 
perience of  two  entire  ethnical  periods.  Descent  among 
them  was  in  the  male  line,  property  was  inherited  by  the 
children  of  the  owner  instead  of  the  agnatic  kindred,  and 
the  family  was  now  assuming  the  monogamian  form. 
The  growth  of  property,  now  becoming  a  commanding 
element,  and  the  increase  of  numbers  gathered  in  walled 
cities  were  slowly  demonstrating  the  necessity  for  the 
second  great  plan  of  government — the  political.  The  old 
gentile  system  was  becoming  incapable  of  meeting  the 


164  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

requirements  of  society  as  it  approached  civilization. 
Glimpses  of  a  state,  founded  upon  territory  and  property, 
were  breaking  upon  the  Grecian  and  Roman  minds  be- 
fore which  gentes  and  tribes  were  to  disappear.  To 
enter  upon  the  second  plan  of  government,  it  was  neces- 
sary to  supersede  the  gentes  by  townships  and  city  wards 
— the  gentile  by  a  territorial  system.  The  going  down 
of  the  gentes  and  the  uprising  of  organized  townships 
mark  the  dividing  line,  pretty  nearly,  between  the  bar- 
barian and  the  civilized  worlds  —  between  ancient  and 
modern  society. 


CHAPTER  VI 


GENTES   IN   OTHER   TRIBES  OF  THE  GANOWA  NIAN    FAMILY 

When  America  was  first  discovered  in  its  several  reg- 
ions, the  Aborogines  were  found  in  two  dissimilar  con- 
ditions. First  were  the  Village  Indians,  w'ho  depended 
almost  exclusively  upon  horticulture  for  subsistence ; 
such  were  the  tribes  in  this  status  in  New  Mexico,  Mex- 
ico and  Central  America,  and  upon  the  plateau  of  the 
Andes.  Second,  were  the  Non-horticultural  Indians,  who 
depended  upon  fish,  bread-roots  and  game ;  such  were 
the  Indians  of  the  Valley  of  the  Columbia,  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Territory,  of  parts  of  Canada,  and  of  some 
other  sections  of  America.  Between  these  tribes,  and 
connecting  the  extremes  by  insensible  gradations,  were 
the  partially  \'illage,  and  partially  Horticultural  Indians ; 
such  were  the  Iroquois,  the  New  England  and  \lrginia 
Indians,  the  Creeks,  Choctas,  Cherokees,  Minnitarees,  Da- 
kotas  and  Shawnees.  The  weapons,  arts,  usages,  inven- 
tions, dances,  house  architecture,  form  of  government,  and 
plan  of  life  of  all  alike  bear  the  impress  of  a  common 
mind,  and  reveal,  through  their  wide  range,  the  successive 
stages  of  development  of  the  same  original  conceptions. 
Our  first  mistake  consisted  in  overrating  the  comparative 
advancement  of  the  Village  Indians;  and  our  second  in 
underrating  that  of  the  Non-horticultural,  and  of  the  par- 
tially Village  Indians :  whence  resulted  a  third,  that  of 
separating  one  from  the  other  and  regarding  them  as  dif- 
ferent races.    There  was  a  marked  difference  in  the  con- 

155 


156  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

ditions  in  which  they  were  severally  found ;  for  a  num- 
ber of  the  Non-horticultural  tribes  were  in  the  Upper 
Status  of  savagery ;  the  intermediate  tribes  were  in  the 
Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  and  the  Village  Indians  were 
in  the  Middle  Status.  The  evidence  of  their  unity  of  or- 
igin has  now  accumulated  to  such  a  degree  as  to  leave 
no  reasonable  doubt  upon  the  question,  although  this  con- 
clusion is  not  universally  accepted.  The  Eskimos  belong 
to  a  different  family. 

In  a  previous  work  I  presented  the  system  of  consan- 
guinity and  affinity  of  some  seventy  American  Indian 
tribes ;  and  upon  the  fact  of  their  joint  possession  of  the 
same  system,  with  evidence  of  its  derivation  from  a  com- 
mon source,  ventured  to  claim  for  them  the  distinctive 
rank  of  a  family  of  mankind,  under  the  name  of  the  Ga- 
nowanian,  the  "Family  of  the  Bow  and  Arrow."* 

Having  considered  the  attributes  of  the  gens  in  its 
archaic  form,  it  remains  to  indicate  the  extent  of  its  prev- 
alence in  the  tribes  of  the  Ganowanian  family.  In  this 
chapter  the  organization  will  be  traced  among  them,  con- 
fining the  statements  to  the  names  of  the  gentes  in  each 
tribe,  with  their  rules  of  descent  and  inheritance  as  to 
property  and  office.  Further  explanations  will  be  added 
when  necessary.  The  main  point  to  be  established  is  the 
existence  or  non-existence  of  the  gentile  organization 
among  them.  Wherever  the  institution  has  been  found 
in  these  several  tribes  it  is  the  same  in  all  essential  re- 
spects as  the  gens  of  the  Iroquois,  and  therefore  needs 
no  further  exposition  in  this  connection.  Unless  the  con- 
trary is  stated,  it  may  be  understood  that  the  existence 
of  the  organization  was  ascertained  by  the  author  from 
the  Indian  tribe  or  some  of  its  members.  The  classifi- 
cation of  tribes  follows  that  adopted  in  "Systems  of  Con- 
sanguinity." 


»  "Systems  of  Consangriiinity  and   .\ffinity   of  the   Human   Family." 
("Smithsonian  Contributions   to    Knowiedge,"   vol.  xvii,    1871,  p.   131.) 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  157 

I.    Hodenosaunian  Tribes. 

1.  Iroquois.  The  gentes  of  the  Iroquois  have  been 
considered.  * 

2.  Wyandotes.  Thi?  tribe,  the  remains  of  the  ancient 
Hurons,  is  composed  of  eig^ht  gentes,  as  follows: 

1.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Beaver.  4.  Turtle.  5.  Deer. 
6.    Snake.    7.    Porcupine.     8.    Hawk.' 

Descent  is  in  the  female  line  with  marriage  in  the  gens 
prohibited.  The  office  of  sachem,  or  civil  chief,  is  he- 
reditary in  the  gens,  but  elective  among  its  members. 
They  have  seven  sachems  and  seven  war-chiefs,  the 
Hawk  gens  being  now  extinct.  The  office  of  sachem 
passes  from  brother  to  brother,  or  from  uncle  to  nephew ; 
but  that  of  war  chief  was  bestowed  in  reward  of  merit, 
and  was  not  her^ditarA'.  Property  was  hereditary  in  the 
gens:  consequently  children  took  nothing  from  their 
father;  but  they  inherited  their  mother's  effects.  Where 
the  rule  is  stated  hereafter  it  will  be  understood  that  un- 
married as  well  as  married  persons  are  included.  Each 
gens  had  power  to  depose  'as  well  as  elect  its  chiefs.  The 
Wyandotes  have  been  separated  from  the  Iroquois  at 
least  four  hundred  years ;  but  they  still  have  five  gentes 
in  common,  although  their  names  have  either  changed 
beyond  identification,  or  new  names  have  been  substi- 
tuted by  one  or  the  other. 

The  Fries.  Neutral  Nation.  Nottoways,  Tutelos.'  and 
Susquehannocks  *  now  extinct  or  absorbed  in  other 
tribes,  belong  to  the  same  lineage.  Presumably  they 
were  organized  in  gentes,  but  the  evidence  of  the  fact  is 
lost. 

'  1.  Wolf.  Tor  yoh'-no.  2.  Boar.  NV-p-ar-ffny'-ee.  3.  Poavpr.  Non- 
par np'-p-ar-soh.  4.  Turtle.  r;a-np-e-ar-tph-gn'--wa.  5.  Deer.  Na-o'-geh. 
(;.  Snipe.  Doo-eese-doo-we*.  7.  Heron,  Jo-as'-seh.  8.  Hawk,  Os  sweh- 
ga-da-jrj:'-ah. 

=  1.  Ah-na-resp'-kwa.  Bone  Gnawers.  2.  Ah-nu-yeh'.  Tree  \Avet. 
3.  Ti:o-ta'-pe.  Shv  Animal.  4.  Oe-ah'-wlsh.  Pine  Land.  ^.  Os  ken'-o- 
tnh.  Ro.Ttninjr.  R.  Sine-gain'-spp.  Creeping.  7.  Ya-ra-hats'-sep.  Tall 
Tree.     S.    Da-soak',   Flyinp- 

=>  Mr.  Horatio  Hale  has  recently  proved  the  connection  of  the 
Tutelos   with   the   Iroquois. 

♦  Mr.  Francis  Parkman.  author  of  the  brilliant  series  of  works  on 
the  colonization  of  Amerira.  was  the  first  to  establish  the  affiliation 
of   the  Susquehannocks  with   the   Iroquois, 


158  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

II.     Dakotian   Tribes. 

A  large  number  of  tribes  are  included  in  this  great 
stock  of  the  American  aborigines.  At  the  time  of  their 
discovery  they  had  fallen  into  a  number  of  groups,  and 
their  language  into  a  number  of  dialects ;  but  they  inhab- 
ited, in  the  main,  continuous  areas.  They  occupied  the 
head  waters  of  the  Mississippi,  and  both  banks  of  the 
Missouri  for  more  than  a  thousand  miles  in  extent.  In 
all  probability  the  Iroquois,  and  their  cognate  tribes, 
were  an  offshoot  from  this  stem. 

I.  Dakotas  or  Sioux.  The  Dakotas,  consisting  at  the 
present  time  of  some  twelve  independent  tribes,  have  al- 
lowed the  gentile  organization  to  fall  into  decadence.  It 
seems  substantially  certain  that  they  once  possessed  it 
because  their  nearest  congeners,  the  Missouri  tribes,  are 
now  thus  organized.  They  have  societies  named  after 
animals  analogous  to  gentes,  but  the  latter  are  now  want- 
ing. Carver,  who  was  among  them  in  1767,  remarks 
that  "every  separate  body  of  Indians  is  divided  into  bands 
or  tribes ;  which  band  or  tribe  forms  a  little  community 
within  the  nation  to  which  it  belongs.  As  the  nation  has 
some  particular  symbol  by  which  it  is  distinguished  from 
others,  so  each  tribe  has  a  badge  from  which  it  is  denom- 
inated ;  as  that  of  the  eagle,  the  panther,  the  tiger,  the 
buffalo,  etc.  One  band  of  the  Naudowissies  (Sioux)  is 
represented  by  a  Snake,  another  a  Tortoise,  a  third  a 
Squirrel,  a  fourth  a  Wolf,  and  a  fifth  a  Buffalo. 
Throughout  every  nation  they  particularize  themselves  in 
the  same  manner,  and  the  meanest  person  among  them 
will  remember  his  lineal  descent,  and  distinguish  himself 
bv  his  respective  family."  ^  He  visited  the  eastern  Da- 
kotas on  the  Mississippi.  From  this  specific  statement  I 
see  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  gentile  organization  was 
then  in  full  vitality  among  them.  When  I  visited  the 
eastern  Dakotas  in  1861,  and  the  western  in  1862,  I  could 
find  no  satisfactory  traces  of  gentes  among  them.  A 
change  in  the  mode  of  life  among  the  Dakotas  occurred 
between  these  dates  when  they  were    forced    upon    the 

I   "Travels  In   North  America,"   Phila.   ed.,   1796,   p.   164. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  I59 

plains,  and  fell  into  nomadic  bands,  which  may,  perhaps, 
explain  the  decadence  of  gentilism  among  them. 

Carver  also  noticed  the  two  grades  of  chiefs  among 
the  western  Indians,  which  have  been  explained  as  they 
exist  among  the  Iroquois.  "Every  band,"  he  observes, 
"has  a  chief  who  is  termed  the  Great  Chief,  or  the  Chief 
Warrior,  and  who  is  chosen  in  consideration  of  his  ex- 
perience in  war,  and  of  his  approved  valor,  to  direct  their 
military  operations,  and  to  regulate  all  concerns  belong- 
ing to  that  department.  But  this  chief  is  not  considered 
the  head  of  the  state ;  besides  the  great  warrior  who  is 
elected  for  his  warlike  qualifications,  there  is  another  who 
enjoys  a  pre-eminence  as  his  hereditary  right,  and  has 
the  more  immediate  management  of  their  civil  affairs. 
This  chief  might  with  greater  propriety  be  denominated 
the  sachem ;  whose  assent  is  necessary  to  all  conveyances 
and  treaties,  to  which  he  afifixes  'the  mark  of  the  tribe 
or  nation."  ^ 

2.  Missouri  tribes,  i.  Punkas.  This  tribe  is  com- 
posed of  eight  gentes,  as  follows : 

I.  Grizzly   Bear.  2.  Many   People.  3.  Elk. 

4.  Skunk.    5.  Buffalo.    6.  Snake.    7.  Medicine.    8.  Ice.  ^ 

In  this  tribe,  contrary  to  the  general  rule,  descent  is 
in  the  male  line,  the  children  belonging  to  the  gens  of 
their  father.  Intermarriage  in  the  gens  is  prohibited. 
The  office  of  sachem  is  hereditary  in  the  gens,  the  choice 
being  determined  by  election ;  but  the  sons  of  a  deceased 
sachem  are  eligible.  It  is  probable  that  the  change  from 
the  archaic  form  was  recent,  from  the  fact  that  among 
the  Otoes  and  Missouris,  two  of  the  eight  Missouri  tribes, 
and  also  among  the  Mandans,  descent  is  still  in  the  fe- 
male' line.     Property  is  hereditary  in  the  gens. 

2.  Omahas.  This  tribe  is  composed  of  the  following 
twelve  gentes : 

I.  Deer.  2.  Black.  3.  Bird.  4  Turtle.  5.  Buf- 
falo. 6.  Bear.  7.  Medicine  8.  Kaw.  9.  Head. 
10.  Red.       II.  Thunder.       12.  Many  Seasons.^ 

1  "Travels    in   North   America,"  p.   165. 

2  1.  "Wa-sa'-bp.       2.  De-a-g:he'-ta.       3.  Na-ko-poz'-na.       4.  Moh- 
kuh'.      5.  Wtt-sha'-ba.     6.  Wazha'-zha.      7.  Noh'  ga.      8.  Wah'-ga. 

.•5  1.  Wa'-zhese-ta.      2.  Ink-ka'-sa-ba.      3.  L&'-tft-dil.      4.  Ki'-lh. 


160  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

Descent,  inheritance,  and  the  law  of  marriage  are  the 
same  as  among-  the  Punkas. 

3.  lowas.  In  Hke  maimer  the  lowas  have  eight  gentes, 
as  follows : 

1.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Cow  Buffalo.  4.  Elk. 
5.     Eagle       6.     Pigeon.       7.     Snake.       8.     Owl.* 

A  gens  of  the  Beaver  Pa-kuh-tha  once  existed  among 
the  lowas  and  Otoes,  but  it  is  now  extinct.  Descent,  in- 
heritance, and  the  prohibition  of  intermarriage  in  the 
gents  are  the  same  as  among  the  Punkas. 

4.  Otoes  and  Missouris.  These  tribes  have  coalesced 
into  one,  and  have  the  eight  following  gentes : 

1.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Cow  Buffalo.  4.  Elk. 
5.    Eagle.      6.    Pigeon.      7.    Snake.      8.    Owl.= 

Descent  among  the  Otoes  and  Missouris  is  in  the  fe- 
male line,  the  children  belonging  to  the  gens  of  their 
mother.  The  office  of  sachem,  and  property  are  hered- 
itary in  the  gens,  in  which  intermarriage  is  prohibited. 

5.  Kaws.  The  Kaws  (Kaw-za)  have  the  following 
fourteen  gentes: 

1.  Deer.  2.  Bear.  3.  Buffalo.  4.  Ea,gle  (white). 
5.    Eagle  (black).      G.    Duck.      7.    Elk.      8.    Raccoon. 

9.  Prairie  Wolf.     10.    Turtle.     11.    Earth.     12.    Deer 
Tail.     13.     Tent.       II.     Thunder.^ 

The  Kaws  are  among  the  wildest  of  the  American 
aborigines,  but  are  an  intelligent  and  interesting  people. 
Descent,  inheritance  and  marriage  regulations  among 
them  are  the  same  as  among  the  Punkas.  It  will  be  ob- 
served that  there  are  two  Eagle  gentes,  and  two  of  the 
Deer,  which  afford  a  good  illustration  of  the  segmenta- 

.1.    Da-thnn'-dn.      0.    Wa-sa-ba.      7.    Ifiin'-fra.      S.    Knn'-za.      0.    Ta"-pa. 

10.  In  j,'ra'-zhp-da.      11.    Isl)-da'-Hiin-da.      I'J.    O  non-p'-ka-ga-ha. 

*  1.  ^Tr'-.^■n'-ra- ja.  '_'.  Tdo-THim'-po.  :!.  Ah'-ro-wha.  4.  Ilo'-dash. 
r>.   f'lirli'-lip-ta.      (!.    T>ii"-cl)ih.      7.    Wa-Vroh'.      8.    Ma'-kotch. 

IT  ri  ircscnt;-!  a  flcci)  sonant  sn(tnr;il.  U  is  (|iiito  rommf>n  in  th'» 
dialffts  of  thp  MissnnrI   tril>ps,   and  also  in   (lip  Minnitarro  anrl   fmn-. 

-  1.  Mo-jp'-ia-ja.  1'.  Moon'-clia.  .'J.  Aii' ro-wiia.  I.  Uon'-ma. 
3.    Kha'  a.      fi.    T,utP'-.ia.      7.    W;r  Ua.      8.    M^'-kotch. 

'  1.  Ta-kp-ka-shfi'-ga.  2.  Sin'-.ia -yp-ga.  '?.  Mo-p'-kwp  ali-ha.  ?.  I!n- 
r'-va.  r>.  Ifnn-go-tin'-ga.  (!.  Alp-ha  shnn'-g.n.  7.  O'-pa.  s.  Mp-ka". 
9.'  Sho'-ma-koo  sa.  10.    Do-ha-kpl'-ya.         11.    Mo-p'-ka  np-ka'-.she-ga. 

12.   Da-sin-ja-ha-ga.     13.   Ic'-ha-shc.      14.   Lo-ne'-ka-shc-ga, 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  1(J1 

tion  of  a  gens ;  the  Eagle  gens  having  probably  divided 
into  two  and  distinguished  themselves  by  the  names  of 
white  and  black.  The  Turtle  will  be  found  hereafter  as 
a  further  illustration  of  the  same  fact.  When  I  visited 
the  Missouri  tribes  in  1859  and  i860,  I  was  unable  to 
reach  the  Osages  and  Quappas.  The  eight  tribes  thus 
named  speak  closely  affiliated  dialects  of  the  Dakotian 
stock  language,  and  the  presumption  that  the  Osages  and 
Quappas  are  organized  in  gentes  is  substantially  con- 
clusive. In  1869,  the  Kaws,  then  much  reduced,  num- 
bered seven  hundred,  which  would  give  an  average  of 
but  fifty  persons  to  a  gens.  The  home  country  of  these 
several  tribes  was  along  the  Missouri  and  its  tributaries 
from  the  mouth  of  the  Big  Sioux  river  to  the  Mississippi, 
and  down  the  west  bank  of  the  latter  river  to  the  Ar- 
kansas. 

3.  Winnebagoes.  When  discovered  this  tribe  resided 
near  the  lake  of  their  name  in  Wisconsin.  An  ofTshoot  * 
from  the  Dakotian  stem,  they  were  apparently  following 
the  track  of  the  Iroquois  eastward  to  the  valley  of  the 
St.  Lawrence,  when  their  further  progress  in  that  direc- 
tion was  arrested  by  the  Algonkin  tribes  between  Lakes 
Huron  and  Superior.  Their  nearest  affiliation  is  with 
the  Missouri  tribes.    They  have  eight  gentes  as  follows : 

I.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Buffalo.  4.  Eagle.  5.  Elk. 
6.  Deer.     7.  Snake.     8.  Thunder.  * 

Descent,  inheritance,  and  the  law  of  marriage  are  the 
same  among  them  as  among  the  Punkas.  It  is  surpris- 
ing that  so  many  tribes  of  this  stock  should  have  changed 
descent  from  the  femiale  line  to  the  male,  because  when 
first  known  the  idjea  of  property  was  substantially  unde- 
veloped, or  but  slightly  beyond  the  germinating  stage, 
and  could  hardly,  as  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  have 
been  the  operative  cause.  It  is  probable  that  it  occurred 
at  a  recent  period  under  American  and  missionary  in- 
fluences. Carver  found  traces  of  descent  in  the  female 
line  in  1787  among  the  \\'innebagoes.     "Some  nations." 

I  1.  Shonk-chun'-ga-di.  2.  Hone-cha'-dH.  3.  Cha'-r».  4.  Wahk- 
cha'-he-da.  5.  Hoo-wun'-nM.  6.  Chi'-r«.  7.  W»-kon'-n». 

8.  W'a-kon'-chH-ra. 


163  ANCIENT  SOCIETY  , 

he  remarks,  ''when  the  dignity  is  hereditary,  Hmit  the  suc- 
cession to  the  female  line.  On  the  death  of  a  chief  his 
sisters'  son  succeeds  him  in  preference  to  his  own  son ; 
and  if  he  happens  to  have  no  sister  the  nearest  female 
relation  assumes  the  dignity.  This  accounts  for  a  woman 
being  at  the  head  of  the  Winnebago  nation,  which,  be- 
fore I  was  acquainted  with  their  laws,  appeared  strange 
to  me."  ^  In  1869,  the  Winnebagoes  numbered  fourteen 
hundred,  which  would  give  an  average  of  one  hundred 
and  fifty  persons  to  the  gens. 

4.     Upper  Missouri  Tribes. 
I.  Mandans.     In  intelligence  and  in  the  arts  of  I'fe  the 
Mandans  were  in  advance  of  all  their  kindred  tribes,  for 
which  they  were  probably  indebted  to  the  Minnitarees. 
They  are  divided  into  seven  gentes  as  follows : 

1.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Prairie  Chicken.  4.  Good 
Knife.     5.  Eagle.     6.  Flathead.     7.  High  Village.^ 

Descent  is  in  the  female  line,  with  oflfice  and  property 
hereditary  in  the  gens.  Intermarriage  in  the  gens  is  not 
permitted.  Descent  in  the  female  line  among  the  Man- 
dans would  be  singular  where  so  many  tribes  of  the  same 
stock  have  it  in  the  male,  were  it  not  in  the  archaic  form 
from  which  the  other  tribes  had  but  recently  departed. 
It  affords  a  strong  presumption  that  it  was  originally  in 
the  female  line  in  all  the  Dakotian  tribes.  This  informa- 
tion with  respect  to  the  Mandans  was  obtained  at  the  old 
Mandan  Village  in  the  Upper  Missouri,  in  1862,  from 
Joseph  Kip,  whose  mother  was  a  Mandan  woman.  He 
confirmed  the  fact  of  descent  by  naming  his  mother's 
gens,  which  was  also  his  own. 

2.  Minnitarees.  This  tribe  and  the  Upsarokas  (Up- 
sar'-o-kas)  or  Crows,  are  subdivisions  of  an  original  peo- 
ple. They  are  doubtful  members  of  this  branch  of  the 
Ganowanian  family :  although  from  the  number  of  words 
in  their  dialects  and  in  those  of  the  IMissouri  and  Dakota 
tribes  which  are  common,  they  have  been  placed  with 

I    "Travels,  loc.  clt.,"  p.  166. 

a  1.  Ho-ra-ta'-mu-make.  2.  Ma-to'-no-mftke.  3.  See-poo8h'» 
kIL  4.  Ta.-na-tsu'-k&.  5.  Kl-t8'-ne-mttke.  6.  E-stH-pa'.  7.  Me. 
t«-ah'-ke. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  163 

them  linguistically.  They  have  had  an  antecedent  expe- 
rience of  which  but  little  is  known.  Minnitarees  carried 
horticulture,  the  timber-framed  house,  and  a.  peculiar 
religious  system  into  this  area  which  they  taught  to  the 
]\Iandans.  There  is  a  possibility  that  they  are  descend- 
ants of  the  Mound-Bijilders.  They  have  the  sevim  fol- 
lowing gentes : 

I.  Knife.  2.  Water,  3.  Lodge.  4.  Prairie  Chicken. 
5.  Hill  People.     6,  Unknown  Animal.     7.  Bonnet.  ^ 

Descent  is  in  the  female  line,  intermarriage  in  the  gens 
is  forbidden,  and  the  office  of  sachem  as  well  as  property 
is  hereditary  in  the  gens.  The  Minnitarees  and  Mandans 
now  live  together  in  the  same  village.  In  personal  ap- 
pearance they  are  among  the  finest  specimens  of  the  Red 
Man  now  living  in  any  part  of  North  America. 

3.  Upsarokas  or  Crows.  This  tribe  has  the  following 
gentes : 

I.  Prairie  Dog.  2.  Bad  Leggins.  3.  Skunk, 

4.  Treacherous  Lodges.  5.  Lost  Lodges.  6.  Bad  Hon- 
ors. 7.  Butchers.  8.  Moving  Lodges.  9.  Bear's  Paw 
Mountain.  10.  Blackfoot  Lodges.  11.  Fish  Catchers. 
12.  Antelope.     13.  Raven.  ^ 

Descent,  inheritance  and  the  prohibition  of  intermar- 
riage in  the  gens,  are  the  same  as  among  the  Minnitarees. 
Several  of  the  names  of  the  Crow  gentes  are  unusual, 
and  more  suggestive  of  bands  than  of  gentes.  For  .a 
time  I  was  inclined  to  discredit  them.  But  the  existence 
of  the  organization  into  gentes  was  clearly  established 
by  their  rules  of  descent,  and  marital  usages,  and  by  their 
laws  of  inheritance  with  respect  to  property.  My  inter- 
preter when  among  the  Crows  was  Robert  Meldrum. 
then  one  of  the  factors  of  the  American  Fur  Company, 
who  had  lived  with  the  Crows  forty  years,  and  was  one 
of  their  chiefs.     He  had  mastered  the  language  so  com- 

1  1.  Mit-che-ro'-ka.  2.  Min-ne-pa'-ta.  3.  Bil-ho-ha'-ta.  4. 
Seech-ka-be-ruh-pa'-ka.  5.  E-tlsh-sho'-ka.  6.  Ah-nah-ha-ni'- 
me-te.       7.  E-ku'pfi-be-ka.  „    ,.     ,  .,    ^ 

2  1.  A-che-pa-be'-cha.  2.  E-sach'-ka-buk.  3.  Ho-ka-rut  -cha. 
4.  Ash-bot-chee-ah.  5.  Ah-shin'-na-de'-ah.  6.  Ese-kep-kft  -'■>uk. 
7.  Oo-sa-bot'-see.  8.  Ah-hH-chick.  9.  Shlp-tet'-zft.  10.  Ash- 
kane'-na.  11.  Boo-a-da -sha.  12.  O-hot-du'-sha.  13.  Pet-chale- 
ruh-pa'-ka. 


164  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

pletely  that  he  thought  in  it.  The  following  special 
usages  with  respect  to  inheritance  were  mentioned  by 
him.  If  a  person  to  whom  any  article  of  property  had 
been  presented  died  with  it  in  his  possession,  and  the 
donor  was  dead,  it  reverted  to  the  gens  of  the  latter. 
Property  made  or  acquired  by  a  wife  descended  after  her 
death  to  her  children;  while  that  of  her  husband  after 
his  decease  belonged  to  his  gentile  kindred.  If  a  person 
made  a  present  to  a  friend  and  died,  the  latter  must  per- 
form some  recognized  act  of  mourning,  such  as  cutting 
off  the  joint  of  a  finger  at  the  funeral,  or  surrender  the 
property  to  the  gens  of  his  deceased  friend.* 

The  Crows  have  a  custom  with  respect  to  marriage, 
which  I  have  found  in  at  least  forty  other  Indian  tribes, 
which  may  be  mentioned  here,  because  some  use  will  be 
made  of  it  in  a  subsequent  chapter.  If  a  man  marries 
the  eldest  daughter  in  a  family  he  is  entitled  to  all  her 
sisters  as  additional  wives  when  they  attain  maturity. 
He  may  waive  the  right,  but  if  he  insists,  his  superior 
claim  would  be  recognized  by  her  gens.  Polygamy  is 
allowed  by  usage  among  the  American  aborigines  gen- 
erally ;  but  it  was  never  prevalent  to  any  considerable  ex- 
tent from  the  inability  of  persons  to  support  more  than 
one  family.  Direct  proof  of  the  existence  of  the  custom 
first  mentioned  was  afforded  by  Meldrum's  wife,  then  at 
the  age  of  twenty-five.  She  was  captured  when  a  child 
in  a  foray  upon  the  Blackfeet,  and  became  Meldrum's 
captive.  He  induced  his  mother-in-law  to  adopt  the  child 
into  her  gens  and  family,  which  made  the  captive  the 
younger  sister  of  his  then  wife,  and  gave  him  the  right 
to  take  her  as  another  wife  when  she  reached  maturity. 
He  availed  himself  of  this  usage  of  the  tribe  to  make  his 
claim  paramount.     This  usage  has  a  great  antiquity  in 

•  This  practice  as  an  act  of  mourning  is  very  common  amonp:  the 
Crows,  and  also  as  a  religious  offering  wlien  they  hold  a  "Medicine 
Tyodge,"  a  great  religious  ceremonial.  In  a  basket  hung  up  in  a 
Medicine  Lodge  for  their  reception  as  offerings,  fifty,  and  sometimes 
a  hundred  finger  joints,  I  have  been  told,  are  sometimes  thus  col- 
lected. At  a  Crow  encampment  on  the  Upper  Missouri  I  noticed  a 
number  of  women  and  men  with  their  bands  mutilated  by  this  prac- 
tice. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  165 

the  human  family.     It  is  a  survival  of  the  old  custom  of 
punalua. 

III.     Gulf  Tribes. 

I.  Muscokees  or  Creeks.  The  Creek  Confederacy 
consisted  of  six  Tribes;  namely,  the  Creeks,  Hitchetes. 
Yoochees,  Alabamas,  Coosatees,  and  Matches,  all  of 
whom  spoke  dialects  of  the  same  language,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  Natches,  who  were  admitted  into  the  con-, 
federacy  after  their  overthrow  by  the  French. 

The  Creeks  are  composed  of  twenty-two  gentes  as  fol- 
lows : 

I.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Skunk.  4.  Alligator,  5.  Deer. 
6.  Bird.  7.  Tiger.  8.  Wind.  9.  Toad.  10.  Mole. 
II.  Fox.  12.  Raccoon.  13.  Fish.  14.  Corn.  15.  Po- 
tato. 16.  Hickory  Xut.  17.  Salt.  18.  Wild  Cat. 
19.  (Sign  Lost).  20.  (Sig'n  Lost).^  21.  (Sign  Lost). 
22.   (Sig'n  Lost).  ^ 

The  remaining  tribes  of  this  confederacy  are  said  to 
have  had  the  organization  into  gentes,  as  the  author  was 
informed  by  the  Rev.  S.  M.  Loughridge,  who  was  for 
many  years  a  missionary  among  the  Creeks,  and  who 
furnished  the  names  of  the  gentes  above  given.  He 
further  stated  that  descent  among  the  Creeks  was  in  the 
female  line ;  that  the  office  of  sachem  and  the  property 
of  deceased  persons  were  hereditary  in  the  gens,  and  that 
intermarriage  in  the  gens  was  prohibited.  At  the  present 
time  the  Creeks  are  partially  civilized  with  a  changed 
plan  of  life.  They  have  substituted  a  political  in  place 
of  the  old  social  system,  so  that  in  a  few  years  all  traces 
of  their  old  gentile  institutions  will  have  disappeared.  In 
1869  they  numbered  about  fifteen  thousand,  which  would 
give  an  average  of  five  hundred  and  fifty  persons  to  the 
gens. 

I  1.  Yft'-hfl.  2.  No-kuse'.  3.  Ku'-mu.  4.  Kal-put'-lu.  5.  E'- 
Cho.  6.  Tus'-wa.  7.  Kat'-chu.  8.  Ho-tor'-lee.  9.  So-pak'-tu. 
10.  Tuk'-ko.  11.  Chii'-la.  12.  Wo'tko.  13.  Hii'-hln.  14.  U'-che. 
15.  Ah'-ah.  16.  O-che';  17.  Ok-chun'-wa.  18..  Kuwu'-ku-che. 
19.  Tfi-mul'-kep.  20.  Ak-tu-ya-chul'kee.  21.  Is-fa-nul'-ke. 

22.  Wiihlak-kul-kee. 

*  Slg'n   equals   signification. 


165  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

2.  Choctas.  Among  the  Choctas  the  phratric  organi- 
zation appears  in  a  conspicuous  manner,  because  each 
phratry  is  named,  and  stands  out  plainly  as  a  phratry.  It 
doubtless  existed  in  a  majority  of  the  tribes  previously 
named,  but  the  subject  has  not  been  specially  investi- 
gated. The  tribe  of  the  Creeks  consists  of  eight  gentes 
arranged  in  two  phratries,  composed  of  four  gentes  each, 
as  among  the  Iroquois. 

I.     Divided  People.     (First  Pliratry). 

I.  Reed.      2.  Law  Okia.      3.  Lulak.      4.  Linoklusha. 
II.     Beloved  People.     (Second  Phratry). 

I.  Beloved  People.  2.  Small  People.  3.  Large  Peo- 
ple.     4.  Cray  Fish.  ^ 

The  gentes  of  the  same  phratry  could  not  intermarry ; 
but  the  members  of  either  of  the  first  gentes  could  marry 
into  either  gens  of  the  second,  and  vice  versa.  It  shows 
that  the  Choctas,  like  the  Iroquois,  commenced  with  two 
gentes,  each  of  which  afterwards  subdivided  into  four, 
and  that  the  original  prohibition  of  intermarriage  in  the 
gens  had  followed  the  subdivisions.  Descent  among  the 
Choctas  w-as  in  the  female  line.  Property  and  the  office 
of  sachem  were  hereditary  in  the  gens.  In  1869  they 
numbered  some  twelve  thousand,  which'  would  give  an 
average  of  fifteen  hundred  persons  to  a  gens.  The  fore- 
going information  was  communicated  to  the  author  by 
the  late  Dr.  Cyrus  Byington,  who  entered  the  mission- 
ary service  in  this  tribe  in  1820  while  they  still  resided 
in  their  ancient  territory  east  of  the  Mississippi,  who  re- 
moved with  them  to  the  Indian  Territory,  and  died  in 
the  missionary  service  about  the  year  1868,  after  forty- 
five  years  of  missionary  labors.  A  man  of  singular  ex- 
cellence and  i)urity  of  character,  he  has  left  behinrl  him 
a  name  and  a  memory  of  which  humanity  may  be  proud. 

A  Chocta  once  expressed  to  Dr.  Byington  a  wisli  that 
he  might  be  made  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  for  the 
reason  that  his  children  would  then  inherit  his  property 

I   First.    Ku-shap'.    Ok'-lft. 
1.  Kush-lk'-sH.       2.  Law-ok'-l8.       3.  Lu-lak    Tk'-s«.       4.  I.ln-ok- 
lu'-sha. 

Second.    Witak-l-Hu-ltt'-tH. 
1.  Chu-fan-Ik'-sa.    2.  Is-ku-la-nl.      3.  Chl'.to.     4.  .Shak-chuk'-la. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  Ig-J 

instead  of  his  gentile  kindred  under  the  old  law  of  the 
gens.  Chocta  usages  would  distribute  his  property  after 
his  death  among  his  brothers  and  sisters  and  the  children 
of  his  sisters.  He  could,  however,  give  his  property  to  his 
children  in  his  life-time,  in  which  case  they  could  hold  it 
against  the  members  of  his  gens.  Many  Indian  tribes 
now  have  considerable  property  in  domestic  animals  and 
in  houses  and  lands  owned  by  individuals,  among  whom 
the  practice  of  giving  it  to  their  children  in  their  life- 
time has  become  common  to  avoid  gentile  inheritance. 
As  property  increased  in  quantity  the  disinheritance  of 
children  began  to  arouse  opposition  to  gentile  inherit- 
ance ;  and  in  some  of  the  tribes,  that  of  the  Choctas 
among  the  number,  the  old  usage  was  abolished  a  few 
years  since,  and  the  right  to  inherit  was  vested  exclusive- 
ly in  the  children  of  the  deceased  owner.  It  came,  how- 
ever, through  the  substitution  of  a  political  system  in  the 
place  of  the  gentile  system,  an  elective  council  and  mag- 
istracy being  substituted  in  place  of  the  old  government 
of  chiefs.  Under  the  previous  usuages  the  wife  inherited 
nothing  from  her  husband,  nor  he  from  her ;  but  the 
wife's  efifects  were  divided  among  her  children,  and  in 
default  of  them,  among  her  sisters. 

3.  Chickasas.  In  like  manner  the  Chickasas  were  or- 
ganized in  two  phratries,  of  which  the  first  contains  four, 
and  the  second  eight  gentes,  as  follows : 

I.  Panther  Phratry. 

I.  Wild  Cat.       2.  Bird.       3.  Fish.       4.  Deer. 

II.  Spaiiish  Phratry. 

I.  Raccoon.  2.  Spanish.  3.  Royal.  4.  Hush-ko- 
ni.  5.  Squirrel.  6.  Alligator.  7.  Wolf.  8.  Black- 
bird. 1^ 

Descent  was  in  the  female  line,  intermarriage  in  the 
gens  was  prohibited,  and  property  as  well  as  the  office 
of  sachem  were  hereditary  in  the  gens.  The  above  par- 
ticulars were  obtained  from  the  Rev.  Charles  C.  Cope- 

I    I.  Kol. 
1.  Ko-in-chusli.        2.  H;l-tilk-f u-shi.        3.  Nun-nl.        4.  Issi. 

II.  Ish-pan-ee. 
1.  Sht-u-ee.  2.  Ish-pan-ee.  3.  Mlng-ko.  4.  Hush-ko-nl. 

i.  Tun-nl.       6.  Ho-chonchab-ba.       7.  Na-sho-li.       8.  Chuh-hll. 


168  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

land,  an  American  missionary  residing  with  this  tribe. 
In  1869  they  numbered  some  five  thousand,  which  would 
give  an  average  of  about  four  hundred  persons  to  the 
gens.  A  new  gens  seems  to  have  been  formed  after  their 
intercourse  with  the  Spaniards  commenced,  or  this  name, 
for  reasons,  may  have  been  substituted  in  the  place  of 
an  original  name.  One  of  the  phratries  is  also  called  the 
Spanish. 

4.  Cherokees.  This  tribe  was  anciently  composed  of 
ten  gentes,  of  which  two,  the  Acorn,  Ah-'ne-dsii'-la,  and 
the  Bird,  Ah-ne-dse-shivd,  are  now  extinct.  They  are 
the  following : 

I.  Wolf.  2.  Red  Paint.  3.  Long  Prairie, 

4.  Deaf.  (A  bird.)  5.  Holly.  6.  Deer.  7.  Blue. 
8.  Long  Hair.  * 

Descent  is  in  the  female  line,  and  intermarriage  in  the 
gens  prohibited.  In  1869  the  Cherokees  numbered  four- 
teen thousand  which  would  give  an  average  of  seventeen 
hundred  and  fifty  persons  to  each  gens.  This  is  the  larg- 
est number,  so  far  as  the  fact  is  known,  ever  found  in  a 
single  gens  among  the  American  aborigines.  The  Cher-  . 
okees  and  Ojibwas  at  the  present  time  exceed  all  the  re- 
maining Indian  tribes  within  the  United  States  in  the 
number  of  persons  speaking  the  same  dialect.  It  may 
be  remarked  further,  that  it  is  not  probable  that  there 
ever  was  at  any  time  in  any  part  of  North  America  a  hun- 
dred thousand  Indians  who  spoke  the  same  dialect.  The 
Aztecs,  Tezcucans  and  Tlascalans  were  the  only  tribes  of 
whom  so  large  a  number  could,  with  any  propriety,  be 
claimed ;  and  with  respect  to  them  it  is  difficult  to  per- 
ceive how  the  existence  of  so  large  a  number  in  either 
tribe  could  be  established,  at  the  epoch  of  the  Spanish 
Conquest,  upon  trustworthy  evidence.  The  unusual  num- 
bers of  the  Creeks  and  Cherokees  is  due  to  the  possession 
of  domestic  animals  and  a  well-developed  field  agricul- 
ture.     They  are  now  partially    civilized,  having    substi- 

I  1.  Ah-ne-whl'-yl.  2.  Ah-ne-who'-teh.  3.  Ah-ne-gatn-ga'- 
nlh..  4.  Dsu-nl-ll'-a-ni.  5.  U  nl-sda'-sdl.  6.  Ah-nee-ka'-wlh. 
7.  Ah-nee-sil-hok'-nlh.       8.  Ah-nu-ka-lo'-hlgh. 

Ah-nee   signifies   the   plural. 


GENTES  TN  OTHER  TRIBES  169 

tuted  an  elective  constitutional  government  in  the  place 
of  the  ancient  gentes,  under  the  influence  of  which  the 
latter  are  rapidly  falling  into  decadence. 

5.  Seminoles.  This  tribe  is  of  Creek  descent.  They 
are  said  to  be  organized  into  gentes,  but  the  particulars 
have  not  been  obtained. 

IV.     Paii'nee  Tribes. 

Whether  or  not  the  Pawnees  are  organized  in  gentes 
has  not  been  ascertained.  Rev.  Samuel  Allis,  who  had 
formerly  been  a  missionary  among  them,  expressed  to 
the  author  his  belief  that  they  were,  although  he  had  not 
investigated  the  matter  specially.  He  named  the  follow- 
ing gentes  of  which  he  believed  they  were  composed : 

I.  Bear.  2.  Beaver.  3.  Eagle.  4.  Buffalo. 

5.  Deer,     6.  Owl. 

I  once  met  a  band  of  Pawnees  on  the  Missouri,  but 
was  unable  to  obtain  an  interpreter. 

The  Arickarees,  whose  village  is  near  that  of  the  Min- 
nitarees,  are  the  nearest  congeners  of  the  Pawnees,  and 
the  same  difficulty  occurred  with  them.  These  tribes, 
with  the  Huecos  and  some  two  or  three  other  small  tribes 
residing  on  the  Canadian  river,  have  always  lived  west 
of  the  Missouri,  and  speak  an  independent  stock  lan- 
guage. If  the  Pawnees  are  organized  in  gentes,  pre- 
sumptively the  other  tribes  are  the  same. 

\'.     Algonkin  Tribes. 

At  the  epoch  of  their  discovery  this  great  stock  of  the 
American  aborigines  occupied  the  area  from  the  Rocky 
Mountains  to  Hudson's  Bay,  south  of  the  Siskatchewun. 
and  thence  eastward  to  the  Atlantic,  including  both 
shores  of  Lake  Superior,  except  at  its  head,  and  both 
banks  of  the  St.  Lawrence  below  Lake  Champlain.  Their 
area  extended  southward  along  the  Atlantic  coast  to 
North  Carolina,  and  down  the  east  bank  of  the  Missis- 
sippi in  Wisconsin  and  Illinois  to  Kentucky.  Within  the 
eastern  section  of  this  immense  region  the  Iroquois  and 
their  affiliated  tribes  were  an  intrusive  people,  their  only 
competitor  for  supremacy  within  its  boundaries. 


jijf^  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

Gitchigamian'  Tribes.  i.  Ojibwas.  The  O  jib  was 
speak  the  same  dialect,  and  are  organized  in  gentes,  of 
which  the  names  of  twenty-three  have  been  obtained 
without  being  certain  that  they  inchide  the  whole  num- 
ber. In  the  Ojibwa  dialect  the  word  totem,  quite  as  often 
pronounced  dodaini,  signifies  the  symbol  or  device  of  a 
gens ;  thus  the  figure  of  a  wolf  was  the  totem  of  the 
Wolf  gens.  From  this  Mr.  Schoolcraft  used  the  words 
'^temic  system,"  to  express  the  gentile  organization, 
which  would  be  perfectly  acceptable  weae  it  not  that  we 
have  both  in  the  Latin  and  the  Greek  a  terminology  for 
every  quality  and  character  of  the  system  which  is  al- 
ready historical.  It  may  be  used,  however,  with  advan- 
tage.    The  Ojibwas  have  the  following  gentes : 

I.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Beaver.  4.  Turtle  (Mud). 
5.  Turtle  (Snapping).  6.  Turtle  (Little).  7.  Rein- 
deer.       8.  Snipe.  9.  Crane.  10.  Pigeon    Hawk. 

11.  Bald  Eagle.        12.  Loon.        13.  J>uck.        14.  Duck. 

15.  Snake.  16.  Muskrat.  17.  Marten.  18.  Heron. 
IQ.  Bull-head.  20.  Carp.  21.  Cat  Fish.  22.  Sturg- 
eon.      23.  Pike.'* 

Descent  is  in  the  male  line,  the  children  belonging  to 
their  father's  gens.  There  are  several  reasons  for  the 
inference  that  it  was  originally  in  the  female  line,  and 
that  the  change  was  comparatively  recent.  In  the  first 
place,  the  Dela wares,  who  are  recognized  by  all  Algon- 
kin  tribes  as  one  of  the  oldest  of  their  lineage,  and  who 
are  styled  "Grandfathers"  by  all  alike,  still  have  ^lescent 
in  the  female  line.  Several  other  Algonkin  tribes  have 
the  same.  Secondly,  evidence  still  remains  that  within 
two  or  three  generations  back  of  the  present,  descent  was 
in  the  female  line,  with  respect  to  the  office  of  chief.  ** 

I  1.  From  the  Ojibwa,  gl-tchi',  great,  and  gii'-mft,  lake,  the 
aboriginal  name  of  Lake  Superior,   and  other  great   lakes. 

i  1.  Myeen'-Kun.  2.  Mlt-kwa'.  3.  Ah-nilk'.  4.  Me-she'-kS. 
5.  Mlk-o-noh'.  6.  Me-skwa-da'-re.  7.  Ah-dik'.  S.  Chu-e-skwe'- 
Bke-wa.  9.  O-jfc-jok'.  10.  Ka-kake'.  1 1.  O-ine-Roe-ze'. 

12.  Mong.         13.  Ah-ah'-weh.  14.  She-shebe'.         15.  Ke-na'-blg. 

16.  Wa-zhush'.      17.  Wa-be-zliaze'.      1 8.  Moo.sh-kit-oo-ze'.      19.  Ah- 

wah-sls'-sa.        20.  NU-ma'-bln.        21. 22.  Na-ma'.        23.  Ke- 

no'-zhe. 

.{ An  Ojibwa  sachem,  Ke-we'-kons,  who  died  about  1S40,  at  the 
age  of  ninety  year.s,  when  asked  by  my  informant  why  lie  did 
not  retire  from  office  and  give  place  to  his  son,  replied,  that  his 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  171 

Thirdly,  American  and  missionary  influences  have  gen- 
erally opposed  it.  A  scheme  of  descent  which  disinher- 
ited the  sons  seemed  to  the  early  missionaries,  trained 
under  very  different  conceptions,  without  justice  or  rea- 
son ;  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  in  a  number  of  tribes, 
the  Ojibwas  included,  the  change  was  made  under  their 
teaching-s.  And  lastly,  since  several  Algonkin  tribes  now 
have  descent  in  the  female  line,  it  leads  to  the  conclusion 
that  it  was  anciently  universal  in  the  Ganov/anian  fam- 
ily, it  being  also  the  archaic  form  of  the  institution. 

Intermarriage  in  the  gens  is  prohibited,  and  both  prop- 
erty and  office  are  hereditary  in  the  gens.  The  children, 
however,  at  the  present  time,  take  the  most  of  it  to  the 
exclusion  of  their  gentile  kindred.  The  property  and 
effects  of  the  mother  pass  to  her  children,  and  in  default 
of  them,  to  her  sisters,  own  and  collateral.  In  like  man- 
ner the  son  may  succeed  his  father  in  the  office  of 
sachem ;  but  where  there  are  several  sons  the  choice  is 
determined  by  the  elective  principle.  The  gentiles  not 
only  elect,  but  they  also  retain  the  power  to  depose.  At 
the  present  time  the  Ojibwas  number  some  sixteen  thou- 
sand, which  would  give  an  average  of  about  seven  hun- 
dred to  each  gens. 

2.  Potawattamies.  This  tribe  has  fifteen  gentes,  as 
follows : 

I.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Beaver.  4.  Elk.  5.  Loon. 
6.  Eagle.  7.  Sturgeon.  8.  Carp.  9.  Bald  Eagle. 
10.  Thunder.  11.  Rabbit.  12.  Crow.  13.  Fox, 

14.  Turkey.       15.  Black  Hawk.  ^ 

Descent,  inheritance,  and  the  law  of  marriage  are  the 
same  as  among  the  Ojibwas. 

son  could  not  succeed  him;  that  the  right  of  succession  belonged 
to  his  nephew,  E-kwa'-ka-mik,  who  must  have  the  office.  This 
nephew  was  a  son  of  one  of  his  sisters.  From  this  statement 
It  follows  that  descent,  anciently,  and  within  a  recent  period, 
was  in  the  female  line.  It  does  not  follow  from  the  form  of 
the  statement  that  tlie  nephew  would  take  by  hereditary  right, 
but  that  he  was  in  the  line  of  succession,  and  his'  election  was 
substantially  assured. 

I  1.  Mo-ah'.       2.  M'-ko'.         3.  Muk.        4.  Mis-shi'-wa.        5.  Meak. 
6.  K'-nou'.  7.  N"-ma'.  8.  N'-ma-pena'.  9.  M'-ge-ze'-wi. 

10.  Che'-kwa.  11.  Wa-bo'-zo.  12.  Ki'-kUg'-she.  13.  Wake-shl'. 
14.  P«n'-na.       15.  M'-ke-eash'-she-k4-kah'.         16.  O-tE'-wa. 


172  AXCIEXT  SOCIETY 

3.  Otawas.  ^  The  O  jib  was,  Otawas  and  Potawatta- 
mies  were  subdivisions  of  an  original  tribe.  When  first 
known  they  were  confederated.  The  Otawas  were  un- 
doubtedly organized  in  gentes.  but  their  names  have  not 
been  obtained. 

4.  Crees.  This  tribe,  when  discovered,  held  the  north- 
west shore  of  Lake  Superior,  and  spread  from  thence  to 
Hudson's  Bay,  and  westward  to  the  Red  River  of  the 
Xorth.  At  a  later  day  they  occupied  the  region  of  the 
Siskatchewun,  and  south  of  it.  Like  the  Dakotas  they 
have  lost  the  gentile  organization  which  presumptively 
once  existed  among  them.  Linguistically  their  nearest 
affiliation  is  with  the  Ojibwas,  whom  they  closely  resem- 
ble in  manners  and  customs,  and  in  personal  appearance. 

Mississippi  Tribes.  The  western  Algonkins.  grouped 
under  this  name,  occupied  the  eastern  banks  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi in  Wisconsin  and  Illinois,  and  extended  south- 
ward into  Kentucky,  and  eastward  into  Indiana. 

I.  Miamis.  The  immediate  congeners  of  the  ?.Iiamis, 
namely,  the  Weas.  Piankeshaws,  Peorias,  and  Kaskas- 
kias,  known  at  an  earlv  day,  collectively,  as  the  Illinois, 
are  now  few  in  numbers,  and  have  abandoned  their  an- 
cient usages  for  a  settled  agricultural  life.  Whether  or 
not  they  were  formerly  organized  in  gentes  has  not  been 
ascertained,  but  it  is  probable  that  they  v^-ere.  The 
Miamis  have  the  following  ten  gentes : 

1.  Wolf.  2.  Loon.  3.  Eagle.  4.  Buzzard. 
5.  Panther.  6.  Turkey.  7.  Raccoon.  8.  Snow. 
9.  Sun.       10.  Water.  ^ 

Lender  their  changed  condition  and  declining  numbers 
the  gentile  organization  is  rapidly  disappearing.  \\^hen 
its  decline  commenced  descent  was  in  the  male  line,  in- 
termarriage in  the  gens  was  forbidden,  and  the  office  of 
sachem  together  with  property  were  hereditary  in  the 
gens. 

2,  Shawnees.  This  remarkable  and  highly  advanced 
tribe,  one  of  the  highest  representatives  of  the  Algonkin 

1  Pronounced   O-til'-wa. 

2  1.  Mf)-wl)n'-wli.  2.  Mon-gwa'.  3.  Ken-da-wa'.  4.  Ah-pa'- 
kose-p-5.  5.  Ka-nn-Z'i'-wa.  6.  Plla-wS'.  7.  Ah-se-pon'-nt. 
8.  Mon-na't.i.       y.  Kul-swU'.       10.   CSot    obtained.) 


GENTES  IN  OTHEEl  TRIBES  173 

Stock,  still  retain  their  gentes.  although  they  have  sub- 
stituted in  place  of  the  old  gentile  system  a  civil  organiza- 
tion with  a  first  and  second  head-chief  and  a  council, 
each  elected  annually  by  popular  suffrage.  They  have 
thirteen  gentes,  which  they  still  maintain  for  social  and 
genealogical  purposes,  as  follows : 

I.  Wolf.  2.  Loon.  3.  Bear.  4,  Buzzard. 

5.  Panther.  6.  Owl.  7.  Turkey,  8.  Deer.  9.  Rac- 
coon. 10.  Turtle.  II.  Snake.  12.  Horse. 
13.  Rabbit.^ 

Descent,  inheritance,  and  the  rule  with  respect  to  mar- 
rying out  of  the  gens  are  the  same  as  among  the  Miamis. 
In  1869  the  Shawnees  numbered  but  seven  hundred, 
which  would  give  an  average  of  about  fifty  persons  to  the 
gens.  They  once  numbered  three  or  four  thousand  per- 
sons, which  was  above  the  average  among  the  American 
Indian  tribes. 

The  Shawnees  had  a  practice,  common  also  to  the 
Miamis  and  Sauks  and  Foxes,  of  naming  children  into 
the  gens  of  the  father  or  of  the  mother  or  any  other  gens, 
under  certain  restrictions,  which  deserves  a  moment's 
notice.  It  has  been  shown  that  among  the  Iroquois  each 
gens  had  its  own  special  names  for  persons  which  no 
other  gens  had  a  right  to  use. '^  This  usage  was  prob- 
ably general.  Among  the  Shawnees  these  names  carried 
with  them  the  rights  of  the  gens  to  which  they  belonged, 
so  that  the  name  determined  the  gens  of  the  person.  As 
the  sachem  must,  in  all  cases,  belong  to  the  gens  over 
which  he  is  invested  with  authority,  it  is  not  unlikely 
that  the  change  of  descent  from  the  female  line  to  the 
male  commenced  in  this  practice ;  in  the  first  place  to 
enable  a  son  to  succeed  his  father,  and  in  the  second  to 
enable  children  to  inherit  property  from  their  father.     If 

1  1.  M'-wa-wa'.  Ma-gwa'.  .'?.  M'-kwa'.  4.  "We-wa'-see. 
5.  M'-se'-pa-se.  6.  M'-ath-wa'.  7.  Pa-la-wa'.  8.  Psake-the. 
9.  Sha-pa-ta'.  10.  Na-ma-tha'.  11.  Ma-na-to'.  12.  Pe-sa-w»'. 
13.  P5-takee-no-the'. 

2  In  every  tribe  the  name  Indicated  the  gens.  Thus,  among 
the  Sauks  and  Foxes  Long  Horn  is  a  name  belonging  to  the 
Deer  gens;  Black  "U'olf.  to  the  wolf.  In  the  Eagle  gens  the  fol- 
lowing are  specimen  names:  Ka'-po-nK,  "Eagle  drawing  his 
rest:"  Ja-ka-kwi-pe.  "Eagle  sitting  with  his  head  up;"  Pe-i- 
ta-na-ka-hok,   "Eagle  flying  over  a  limb." 


174  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

a  son  when  christened  received  a  name  belonging  to  the 
gens  of  his  father  it  would  place  him  in  his  father's  gen.- 
and  in  the  line  of  succession,  but  subject  to  the  elective 
principle.  The  father,  however,  had  no  control  over  the 
question.  It  was  left  by  the  gens  to  certain  persons,  most 
of  them  matrons,  who  were  to  be  consulted  when  chil- 
dren were  to  be  named,  with  power  to  determine  the 
name  to  be  given.  By  some  arrangement  between  the 
Shawnee  gentes  these  persons  had  this  power,  and  the 
name  when  conferred  in  the  prescribed  manner,  carried 
the  person  into  the  gens  to  which  the  name  belonged. 

There  are  traces  of  the  archaic  rule  of  descent  among 
the  Shawnees,  of  which  the  following  illustration  may  be 
given  as  it  was  m-entioned  to  the  author.  Ld-ho'-weh,  a 
sachem  of  the  Wolf  gens,  when  about  to  die.  expressed 
a  desire  that  a  son  of  one  of  his  sisters  might  succeed 
him  in  the  place  of  his  own  son.  But  his  nephew  (Kos- 
kzva'-the)  was  of  the  Fish  and  his  son  of  the  Rabbit 
gens,  so  that  neither  could  succeed  him  without  first  be- 
ing transferred,  by  a  change  of  name,  to  the  Wolf  gens, 
in  which  the  office  was  hereditary.  His  wish  was  re- 
spected. After  his  death  the  name  of  his  nephew  was 
changed  to  Tcp-a-ta-go  the' ,  one  of  the  Wolf  names,  and 
he  was  elected  to  the  office.  Such  laxity  indicates  a 
decadence  of  the  gentile  organization ;  but  it  tends  to 
show  that  at  no  remote  period  descent  among  the  Shaw- 
nees was  in  the  female  line. 

3.  Sauks  and  Foxes.  These  tribes  are  consolidated 
into  one,  and  have  the  following  gentes : 

I.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Deer.  4.  Elk.  5.  Hawk. 
6.  Eagle.  7.  Fish.  8.  Buffalo.  9.  Thunder. 

10.  Bone.  II.  Fox.  12,  Sea.  13.  Sturgeon. 

14.  Big  Tree.  ^ 

Descent,  inheritance,  and  the  rule  requiring  marriage 
out  of  the  gens,  are  the  same  as  among  the  Miamis.     In 

I  1.  Mo-whawls'-so-uk.  2.  Ma-kwis'-so-jik.  3.  Pa-sha'-iE:a- 
Ba-wis-so-uk.  4.  M5-shawa-uk'.  5.  Ka  ka-kwis'-so-uk.  6.  Pa-mis'- 
Bo-uk.  7.  Na-m5-sls'-so-t]k.  8.  Na-nus-sus'-so-uk.  Na-na-ma'- 
kew-uk.  10.    Ah-kuh'-ne-nak.  11.    W8-ko-a-wls'-so-Jllc. 

12.  Ka-che-konea-we'-so-uk.  13.  Na-ma-we'--so-uk.  14.  Ml- 

•he'mi-tlk. 


OENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  176 

1869  they  numbered  but  seven  hundred,  which  would 
give  an  average  of  fifty  persons  to  the  gens.  The  num- 
ber of  gentes  still  preserved  affords  some  evidence  that 
they  were  several  times  more  numerous  within  the  prev- 
ious two  centuries. 

4.  Menominees  and  Kikapoos.  These  tribes,  which 
are  independent  of  each  other,  are  organized  in  gentes, 
but  their  names  have  not  been  procured.  With  respect 
to  the  Menominees  it  may  be  inferred  that,  until  a  recent 
period,  descent  was  in  the  female  line,  from  the  follow- 
ing statement  made  to  the  author,  in  1859,  ^y  Antoine 
Gookie,  a  member  of  this  tribe.  In  answer  to  a  question 
concerning  the  rule  of  inheritance,  he  replied:  "If  I 
should  die,  my  brothers  and  maternal  uncles  would  rob 
my  wife  and  children  of  my  property.  We  now  expect 
that  our  children  will  inherit  our  effects,  but  there  is  no 
certainty  of  it.  The  old  law  gives  my  property  to  my 
nearest  kindred  who  are  not  my  children,  but  mv  brothers 
and  sisters,  and  maternal  uncles."  It  shows  that  property 
was  hereditary  in  the  gens,  but  restricted  to  the  agnatic 
kindred  in  the  female  line. 

Rocky  Mountain  Tribes,  i.  Blood  Blackfeet.  This 
tribe  is  composed  of  the  five  following  gentes : 

1.  Blood.  2.  Fish  Eaters.  3.  Skunk.  4.  Extinct 
Animal.      5.  Elk.  ^ 

Descent  is  in  the  male  line,  but  intermarriage  in  the 
gens  is  not  allowed. 

2.  Piegan  Blackfeet.  This  tribe  has  the  eight  follow'- 
ing  gentes : 

I,  Blood.  2.  Skunk.  3.  Web  Fat.  4.  Inside  Fat. 
5.  Conjurers.  6.  Never  Laugh.  7.  Starving. 

8.  Half  Dead  Meat.  * 

Descent  is  in  the  male  line,  and  intermarriage  in  the 
gens  is  prohibited.  Several  of  the  names  above  given 
are  more  appropriate  to  bands  than  to  gentes :  but  as  the 
information    was    obtained    from    the    Blackfeet    direct, 


1  1.  Kl'no.  2.  Mft-me-o'-ya.  3.  Ah-pe-kl'.  4.  A-ne'-pv 
B.  Po-noklx'.                                                        _    ,,         ,  .        ,    ■„. 

2  1.  Ah-ah'pl-ta-pe.  2.  Ah-pe-kl'-e.  3.  Ih-po  -se-mi.  4.  Ka- 
ka'-po-ya.  5.  Mo-ta'-to-sls.  6.  KH-tl'-ya-ye-mlx.  7.  Kl-ta -§f«» 
mi-ne.      8.  E-ko'-to-pis-taxe, 


176  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

through  competent  interpreters,  (Mr.  and  Mrs.  Alexan- 
der Culbertson,  the  latter  a  Blackfoot  woman)  I  beHeve 
it  rehable.  It  is  possible  that  nicknames  for  gentes  ii? 
some  cases  may  have  superseded  the  original  names. 
Atlantic  Tribes. 
I.  Dela wares.  As  elsewhere  stated  the  Delawaies  are, 
in  the  duration  of  their  separate  existence,  one  of  the 
oldest  of  the  Algonkin  tribes.  Their  home  country,  when 
discovered,  was  the  region  around  and  north  of  Dela- 
ware Bay.  They  are  comprised  in  three  gentes,  as  fol- 
lows : 

1.  Wolf.     Took'-seat.     Round  Paw. 

2.  Turtle.     Poke-koo-un'-go.     Crawling. 

3.  Turke}'.     Pul-la'-cook.     Non-chewing. 

These  subdivisions  are  in  the  nature  of  phratries,  be- 
cause each  is  composed  of  twelve  sub-gentes,  each  hav- 
ing some  of  the  attributes  of  a  gens.  ^  The  names  are 
personal,  and  mostly,  if  not  in  every  case,  those  of  fe- 
males. As  this  feature  was  unusual  I  worked  it  out  as 
minutely  as  possible  at  the  Delaware  reservation  in  Kan- 
sas, in  i860,  with  the  aid  of  William  Adams,  an  edu- 
cated Delaware.  It  proved  impossible  to  find  the  origin 
of  these  subdivisions,  but  they  seemed  to  be  the  several 
eponymous  ancestors  from  whom  the  members  of    the 


I  I.  Wolf.     Took'-seat. 

1.  Ma-an'-grcet.  Bigr  Feet.  2.  Wee-sow-het'-ko.  YeHow  Tree. 
3.  Pa-sa-kun-a'-ihon,  PuHing  Corn.  4.  We-yar-nih'-ka-to.  Care 
Enterer.  5.  Toosh-war-ka'-ma,  Across  the  River.  6.  O-lum'- 
a-ne,    Vermilion.  7.  Pun-ar'-you,    Dog    standing    by    Fireside. 

8.  Kwin-eek'-cha,    Long    Body.  9.  Moon-har-tar'-ne,    Digging. 

10.  Non-har'-min,    Pulling    up    Stream.       11.  Long-ush-har-kar'- 
to,    Brush    Log.       12.  Maw-soo-toh',    Bringing   Along. 
II.  Turtle.    Poke-koo-un'-go. 

1.  O-ka-ho'-kl,  Ruler.  2.  Ta-ko-ong'-o-to,  High  Bank  Shore. 
3.  See-har-ong'-o-to.  Drawing  down  Hill.  4.  Ole-har-kar-me'- 
kar-to,  Elector.  5.  Ma-har-o-luk'-ti,  Brave.  6.  Toosh-ki-pa- 
kwis-1.     Green     Leaves.  7.  Tung-ul-ung'-si,     Smallest     Turtle. 

s.  We-lun-ung-si,  Little  Turtle.  9.  Lee-kwin-a-i',  Snapping  Tur- 
tle.      10.  Kwis-aese-kees'-to,   Deer. 

The  two  remaining  sub-gentes  are  extinct. 
III.  Turkey.    Pul-la'-ook. 

1.  Mo-har-a'-lJl,    Big    Bird.  2.  Le-le-wa'-you,     Bird's     Cry. 

3.  Moo-kwung-wa-ho'-ki,  Eye  Pain.  4.  Moo-har-mo-wl-kar'-nu, 
Scratch  the  Path.  5.  O-pingho'-ki,  Opos.'jum  Ground.  6.  Muh- 
ho-we-ka'-ken,  Old  Shin.  7.  Tong-o-na'-o-to,  Drift  Log.  8.  Nool- 
5-mar-lar'-mo,  Living  in  Water.  9.  Muh-krent-har'-ne,  Root 
Digger.  10.  Muh-karm-huk-se.  Red  Face.  11.  Koo-wg-ho'-ke, 
Pine  Region.       12.  Oo-chuk'--ham,  Ground   Scratcher. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  177 

gentes  respectively  derived  their  descent.  It  shows  also 
the  natural  growth  of  the  phratries  from  the  gentes. 

Descent  among  the  Delawares  is  in  the  female  line, 
which  renders  probable  its  ancient  universality  in  this 
form  in  the  Algonkin  tribes.  The  office  of  sachem  was 
hereditary  in  the  gens,  but  elective  among  its  members, 
who  had  the  power  both  to  elect  and  depose.  Property 
also  was  hereditary  in  the  gens.  Originally  the  members 
of  the  three  original  gentes  could  not  intermarry  in  their 
own  gens ;  but  in  recent  years  the  prohibition  has  been 
confined  to  the  sub-gentes.  Those  of  the  same  name  in 
the  Wolf  gens,  now  partially  become  a  phratry,  for  ex- 
ample, cannot  intermarry,  but  those  of  different  names 
marry.  The  practice  of  naming  children  into  the  gens 
of  their  father  also  prevails  among  the  Delawares,  and 
has  introduced  the  same  confusion  of  descents  found 
among  the  Shawnees  and  Miamis.  American  civiliza- 
tion and  intercourse  necessarily  administered  a  shock  to 
Indian  institutions  under  which  the  ethnic  life  of  the 
people  is  gradually  breaking  down. 

Examples  of  succession  in  office  afford  the  most  satis- 
factory illustrations  of  the  aboriginal  law  of  descent.  A 
Delaware  woman,  after  stating  to  the  author  that  she, 
with  her  children,  belonged  to  the  Wolf  gens,  and  her 
husband  to  the  Turtle,  remarked  that  when  Captain 
Ketchum  (Ta-whe'-la-na),  late  head  chief  or  sachem  of 
the  Turtle  gens,  died,  he  was  succeeded  by  his  nephew, 
John  Conner  (Ta-ta-ne'-sha),  a  son  of  one  of  the  sisters 
of  the  deceased  sachem,  who  was  also  of  the  Turtle  gens. 
The  decedent  left  a  son,  but  he  was  of  another  gens  and 
consequently  incapable  of  succeeding.  With  the  Dela- 
wares, as  with  the  Iroquois,  the  office  passed  from 
brother  to  brother,  or  from  uncle  to  nephew,  because  de- 
scent was  in  the  female  line, 

2.  Munsees.  The  Munsees  are  an  offshoot  from  the 
Delawares,  and  have  the  same  gentes,  the  W'olf,  the  Tur- 
tle and  the  Turkey.  Descent  is  in  the  female  line,  inter- 
marriage in  the  gens  is  not  permitted,  and  the  office  of 
sachem,  as  well  as  property,  are  hereditary  in  the  gens. 

3.  Mohegans.    All  of  the  New  England  Indians,  south 


178  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

of  the  river  Kennebeck,  of  whom  the  Mohegans  formed 
a  part,  were  closely  affiliated  in  language,  and  could  un- 
derstand each  other's  dialects.  Since  the  Mohegans  are 
organized  in  gentes,  there  is  a  presumption  that  the 
Pequots,  Narragansetts,  and  other  minor  bands  were  not 
only  similarly  organized,  but  had  the  same  gentes.  The 
Mohegans  have  the  same  three  with  the  Delawares,  the 
Wolf,  the  Turtle  and  the  Turkey,  each  of  which  is  com- 
posed of  a  number  of  gentes.  It  proves  their  immediate 
connection  with  the  Delawares  and  Munsees  by  descent, 
and  also  reveals,  as  elsewhere  stated,  the  process  of  sub- 
division by  which  an  original  gens  breaks  up  into  several, 
which  remain  united  in  a  phratry.  In  this  case  also  it 
may  be  seen  how  the  phratry  arises  naturally  under  gen- 
tile institutions.  It  is  rare  among  the  American  aborig- 
ines to  find  preserved  the  evidence  of  the  segmentation 
of  original  gentes  as  clearly  as  in  the  present  case. 

The  Mohegan  phratries  stand  out  more  conspicuously 
than  those  of  any  other  tribe  of  the  American  aborigines, 
because  they  cover  the  gentes  of  each,  and  the  phratries 
must  be  stated  to  explain  the  classification  of  the  gentes ; 
but  we  know  less  about  them  than  of  those  of  the  Iro- 
quois.    They  are  the  following: 

I.  IVolf  Phratry.     Took-se-tuk'. 

I.  Wolf.       2.  Bear.       3.  Dog.       4.  Opossum. 

II.  Turtle  Phratrv.     Tone-hd'-o. 

I.  Little  Turtle.  2.  Mud  Turtle.  3.  Great  Turtle. 
4.  Yellow  Eel. 

III.     Turkey  Phratry. 

I.  Turkey.     2.  Crane.     3.  Chicken.  ^ 

Descent  is  in  the  female  line,  intermarriage  in  the 
gens  is  forbidden,  and  the  office  of  sachem  is  hereditary 
in  the  gens,  the  office  passing  either  from  brother  to 
brother,  or  from  uncle  to  nephew.  Among  the  Pequots 
and  Narragansetts  descent  was  in  the  female  line,  as  I 

I   I.  Took-se-tuk'. 
1.  Ne-h'-Jl-o.        2.  Ma'kwB.       3.  N-de-yft'-o.        4.  Wa-pa-kwe'. 
II.  Toneba'-o. 

i.  Gak-po-mute'.       2.  3.  Tone-ba'-o.       4.  We-saw-ma'-un, 

III.  Turkey. 
\.  Na-ahma'-o.      2.  Ga-h'-ko.      3. . 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  178 

learned  from  a  Xarragansett  woman  whom  I  met  ia 
Kansas. 

4.  Abenakis.  The  name  of  this  tribe,  Wa-be-na'-kee, 
signifies  "Rising  Sun  People."  ^  They  affiHatc  more 
closely  with  the  Micmacs  than  with  the  New  England 
Indians  south  of  the  Kennebeck.  They  have  fourteen 
gentes,  a^  follows : 

I.  Wolf.     2.  Wild  Cat  (Black.)     3.  Bear.     4.  Snake. 

5.  Spotted  Animal.  6.  Beaver.  7.  Cariboo. 
8.  Sturgeon.  9.  Muskrat.  10.  Pigeon  Hawk. 
II.  Squirrel.  12.  Spotted  Frog.  13.  Crane. 
14.  Porcupine.  ' 

Descent  is  now  in  the  male  line,  intermarriage  in  the 
gens  was  anciently  prohibited,  but  the  prohibition  has 
now  lost  most  of  its  force.  The  office  of  sachem  was 
hereditary  in  the  gens.  It  will  be  noticed  that  several 
of  the  above  gentes  are  the  same  as  among  the  Ojibwas. 
Yl.     Athapasco-Apache  Tribes. 

Whether  or  not  the  Athapascans  of  Hudson's  Bay  Ter- 
ritory and  the  Apaches  of  New  Mexico,  w'ho  are  subdi- 
visions of  an  original  stock,  are  organized  in  gentes  has 
not  been  definitely  ascertained.  When  in  the  former  ter- 
ritory, in  1861,  I  made  an  effort  to  determine  the  ques- 
tion among  the  Hare  and  Red  Knife  Athapascans,  but 
was  unsuccessful  for  want  of  competent  interpreters ; 
and  yet  it  seems  probable  that  if  the  system  existed, 
traces  of  it  would  have  been  discovered  even  with  im- 
perfect means  of  inquiry.  The  late  Robert  Kennicott 
made  a  similar  attempt  for  the  author  among  the  A-chii'- 
o-ten-ne,  or  Slave  Lake  Athapascans,  with  no  better  suc- 
cess. He  found  special  regulations  with  respect  to  mar- 
riage and  the  descent  of  the  office  of  sachem,  which 
seemed  to  indicate  the  presence  of  gentes,  but  he 
could  not  obtain  satisfactory  information.  The  Kutchin 
(Louchoux)'  of  the  Yukon  river  region  are  Athapascans. 

1  In  "Systems  of  Consanguinity."  the  aboriginal  names  of  th«5 
principal  Indian  tribes,  with  their  significations,  may  be  founc!. 

2  1.  Mais, -sum.  2.  Pls-suh'.  3.  Ah-weh'.soos.  4.  Skooke. 

6.  Ah-lunk'-soo.  6.  Ta-ma'-kwa.  7.  Ma-guh-le-loo'.  S.  Ka- 
bah'-seh.  9.  Moos-kwa-suh'.  10.  K'-che-ga-gong'-go.  11.  Meh- 
ko-a'.       12.  Che-gwa'-lis.        13.  Koos-koo'.       14.  Ma-da'-wehsoos. 


180  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

In  a  letter  to  the  author  by  the  late  George  Gibbs,  he 
remarks:  "In  a  letter  which  I  have^  from  a  gentleman  at 
Fort  Simpson,  Mackenzie  river,  it  is  mentioned  that 
among  the  Louchoux  or  Kutchin  there  are  three  grades 
or  classes  of  society — undoubtedly  a  mistake  for  totem, 
though  the  totems  probably  differ  in  rank,,  as  he  goes  on 
to  say — that  a  man  does  not  marry  into  his  own  class, 
but  takes'  a  wife  from  some  other ;  and  that  a  chief  from 
the  highest  may  marry  with  a  woman  of  the  lowest  with- 
out loss  of  caste.  The  children  belong  to  the  grade  of 
the  mother ;  and  the  members  of  the  same  grade  in  the 
different  tribes  do  not  war  with  each  other." 

Among  the  Kolushes  of  the  Northwest  Coast,  who 
affiliate  linguistically  though  not  closely  with  the  Atha- 
pascans, the  organization  into  gentes  exists.  Mr.  Galla- 
tin remarks  that  they  are  "like  our  own  Indians,  divided 
into  tribes  or  clans ;  a  distinction  of  which,  according  to 
Mr.  Hale,  there  is  no  trace  among  the  Indians  of  Oregon. 
The  names  of  the  tribes  [gentes]  are  those  of  animals, 
namely :  Bear,  Eagle,  Crow,  Porpoise  and  Wolf. . .  .  The 
right  of  succession  is  in  the  female  line,  from  uncle  to 
nephew,  the  principal  chief  excepted,  who  is  generally 
the  most  powerful  of  the  family."  ^ 

VII.     Indian  Tribes  of  the  Northwest  Coast. 

In  some  of  these  tribes,  beside  the  Kolushes,  the  gen- 
tile organization  prevails.  "Before  leaving  Puget's 
Sound,"  observes  Mr.  Gibbs,  in  a  letter  to  the  author,  "I 
was  fortunate  enough  to  meet  representatives  of  three 
principal  families  of  what  we  call  the  Northern  Indians, 
the  inhabitants  of  the  Northwest  Coast,  extending  from 
the  Upper  end  of  Vancouver's  Island  into  the  Russian 
Possessions,  and  the  confines  of  the  Esquimaux.  From 
them  I  ascertained  positively  that  the  totemic  system  ex- 
ists at  least  among  these  three.  The  families  I  speak  of 
are,  beginning  at  the  northwest,  Tlinkitt,  commonly 
called  the  Stikeens,  after  one  of  their  bands;  the  Tiaidas; 
and  Chimsyans,  called  by  Gallatin,  Weas.  There  are 
four  totems  common  to  these,  the  Whale,  the  Wolf,  the 

I   Trans.  Am.  Eth.  Soc,  li,  Intro.,  cxUx. 


OENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  181 

Eagle,  and  the  Crow.  Neither  of  these  can  marry  into 
the  same  totem,  although  in  a  ditYerent  nation  or  family. 
What  is  remarkable  is  that  these  nations  constitute  en- 
tirely different  families,  I  mean  by  this  that  their  lan- 
guages are  essentially  different,  having  no  perceptible 
analogy."  Mr.  Dall^  in  his  work  on  Alaska,  written  still 
later,  remarks  that  "the  Tlinkets  are  divided  into  four 
totems:    the   Raven    (Yehl),  the    Wolf    (Kanu'kh),  the 

Whale,  and  the  Eagle    (Chethl) Opposite  totems 

only  can  marry,  and  the  child  usually  takes  the  mother's 
totem."  ^  ' 

Mr.  Hubert  H.  Bancroft  presents  their  organization 
still  more  fully,  showing  two  phratries,  and  the  gentes 
belonging  to  each.  He  remarks  of  the  Thlinkeets  that 
the  "nation  is  separated  into  two  great  divisions  or  clans, 
one  of  which  is  called  the  Wolf  and  the  other  the  Raven. 
The  Raven  trunk  is  again  divided  into  sub-clans,  called 
the  Frog,  the  Goose,  the  Sea-Lion,  the  Owl,  and  the  Sal- 
mon. The  Wolf  family  comprises  the  Bear,  Eagle, 
Dolphin,  Sharic,  and  Alca. .  .  .  Tribes  of  the  same  clan 
may  not  war  on  each  other,  but  at  the  same  time  mem- 
bers of  the  same  clan  may  not  marry  with  each  other. 
Thus,  the  young  Wolf  warrior  must  seek  his  mate 
among  the  Ravens."  * 

The  Eskimos  do  not  belong  to  the  Ganowanian  family. 
Their  occupation  of  the  American  continent  in  compari- 
son with  that  of  the  latter  family  was  recent  or  modern. 
They  are  also  without  gentes. 

\Tn.  Salish,  Sahaptin  and  Kootcnay  Tribes. 
The  tribes  of  the  \'alley  of  the  Columbia,  of  whom 
those  above  named  represent  the  principal  stocks,  are 
without  the  gentile  organization.  Our  distinguished 
philologists,  Horatio  Hale  and  the  late  George  Gibbs, 
both  of  whom  devoted  special  attention  to  the  subject, 
failed  to  discover  any  traces  of  the  system  among  them. 
There  are  strong  reasons  for  believing  that  this  remark- 
able area  was  the  nursery  land  of  the  Ganowanian  fam- 

1  "Alaska  and  its  Resources,"  p.   414. 

>  "Native  Races  of  the  Pacific  States,"   i,   109. 


l^  ANCiEMT  gOCIfetlf 

ily.,  ffotil  which,  as  the  initial  point  of  their  migrations, 
they  spread  abroad  over  both  divisions  of  the  continent. 
It  seems  probable,  therefore,  that  their  ancestors  pos- 
sessed the  organization  into  gentes,  and  that  it  fell  into 
decay  and  finally  disappeared. 

IX.     Shoshonee   Tribes. 

The  Comanches  of  Texas,  together  with  the  Ute  tribes, 
the  Bonnaks,  the  Shoshonees,  and  some  other  tribes,  be- 
long to  this  stock.  Mathew  Walker,  a  Wyandote  half- 
blood,  informed  the  author,  in  1859,  ^hat  he  had  lived 
among  the  Comanches,  and  that  they  had  the  following 
gentes : 

I.  Wolf.  2.  Bear.  3.  Elk.  4.  Deer.  5.  Gopher. 
6.  Antelope. 

If  the  Comanches  are  organized  in  gentes,  there  is  a 
presumption  that  the  other  tribes  of  this  stock  are  the 
same. 

This  completes  our  review  of  the  social  system  of  the 
Indian  tribes  of  North  America,  north  of  New  Mexico. 
The  greater  portion  of  the  tribes  named  were  in  the 
Lower  Status  of  barbarism  at  the  epoch  of  FAiropean 
discovery,  and  the  remainder  in  the  Upper  Status  of 
savagery.  From  the  wide  and  nearly  universal  preva- 
lence of  the  organization  into  gentes,  its  ancient  univer- 
sality among  them  with  descent  in  the  female  line  may 
with  reason  be  assumed.  Their  system  was  purely  social, 
having  the  gens  as  its  unit,  and  the  phratry,  tribe  and 
confederacy  as  the  remaining  members  of  the  organic 
series.  These  four  successive  stages  of  integration  and 
re-integration  express  the  whole  of  their  experience  in 
the  growth  of  the  idea  of  government.  Since  the  princi- 
pal Aryan  and  Semitic  tribes  had  the  same  organic  series 
when  they  emerged  from  barbarism,  the  system  was  sub- 
stantially universal  in  ancient  society,  and  inferentially 
had  a  common  origin.  The  punaluan  group,  hereafter 
to  be  described  more  fully  in  connection  with  the  growth 
of  the  idea  of  the  family,  evidently  gave  birth  to  the 
gentes,  so  that  the  Aryan,  Semitic,  Uralian,  Turanian 
and  Ganowanian  families  of  mankind  point  with  a  dis- 
tinctiveness seemingly  unmistakable  to  a  common  punal- 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  tRIBES  1^ 

uan  stock,  with  the  organization  into  gentes  engrafted 
upon  it,  from  which  each  and  all  were  derived,  and 
finally  differentiated  into  families.  This  conclusion,  I 
believe,  will  ultimately  enforce  its  own  acceptance,  when 
future  investigation  has  developed  and  verified  the  facts 
on  a  minuter  scale.  Such  a  great  organic  series,  able  to 
hold  mankind  in  society  through  the  latter  part  of  the 
period  of  savagery,  through  the  entire  period  of  barbar- 
ism, and  into  the  early  part  of  the  period  of  civilization, 
does  not  arise  by  accident,  but  had  a  natural  development 
from  pre-existing  elements.  Rationally  and  rigorously 
interpreted,  it  seems  probable  that  it  can  be  made  de- 
monstrative of  the  unity  of  origin  of  all  the  families  of 
mankind  who  possessed  the  organization  into  gentes. 

X.     Village  Indians. 

I.  Moqui  Pueblo  Indians.  The  Moqui  tribes  are  still 
in  undisturbed  possession  of  their  ancient  communal 
houses,  seven  in  number,  near  the  Little  Colorado  in  Ari- 
zona, once  a  part  of  New  Mexico.  They  are  living  un- 
der their  ancient  institutions,  and  undoubtedly  at  the 
present  moment  fairly  represent  the  type  of  Village  In- 
dian life  which  prevailed  from  Zuiii  to  Cuzco  at  the 
epoch  of  Discovery.  Zuni,  Acoma,  Taos,  and  several 
other  New  Mexican  pueblos  are  the  same  structures 
which  were  found  there  by  Coronado  in  1540- 1542. 
Notwithstanding  their  apparent  accessibility  we  know  in 
reality  but  little  concerning  their  mode  of  life  or  their 
domestic  institutions.  No  systematic  investigation  has 
ever  been  made.  What  little  information  has  found  its 
way  into  print  is  general  and  accidental. 

The  Moquis  are  organized  in  gentes,  of  which  they 
have  nine,  as  follows : 

I.  Deer.  2.  Sand.  3.  Rain.  4.  Bear.  5.  Hare. 
6.  Prairie  Wolf.  7.  Rattlesnake.  8.  Tobacco  Plant. 
9.  Reed  Grass. 

Dr.  Ten  Broeck,  Assistant  Surgeon,  U.  S.  A.,  fur- 
nished to  Mr.  Schoolcraft  the  Moqui  legend  of  their  or- 
igin which  he  obtained  at  one  of  their  villages.     They 


184  ANCTEKT  FOC'IKTT 

said  that  "many  years  ago  their  Great  Mother  ^  brought 
from  her  home  in  the  West  nine  races  of  men  in  the  fol- 
lowing form.  First,  the  Deer  race;  second,  the  Sand 
race;  third,  the  Water  [Rain]  race;  fourth,  the  Bear 
race ;  fifth,  the  Hare  race ;  sixth,  the  Prairie  Wolf  race ; 
seventh,  the  Rattlesnake  race ;  eighth,  the  Tobacco  Plant 
race ;  and  ninth,  the  Reed  Grass  race.  Having  planted 
them  on  the  spot  where  their  villages  now  stand,  she 
transformed  them  into  men  who  built  up  the  present 
pueblos ;  and  the  distinction  of  race  is  still  kept  up.  One 
told  me  that  he  was  of  the  Sand  race,  another,  the  Deer, 
etc.  They  are  firm  believers  in  metempsychosis,  and  say 
that  when  they  die  they  will  resolve  into  their  original 
forms,  and  become  bears,  deer,  etc.,  again.  . .  .  The  gov- 
ernment is  hereditary,  but  does  not  necessarily  descend  to 
the  son  of  the  incumbent ;  for  if  they  prefer  any  other 
blood  relative,  he  is  chosen."  ^  Having  passed,  in  this 
case,  from  the  Lower  into  the  Middle  Status  of  barbar- 
ism, and  found  the  organization  into  gentes  in  full  devel- 
opment, its  adaptation  to  their  changed  condition  is  dem- 
onstrated. Its  existence  among  the  Village  Indians  in 
general  is  rendered  probable ;  but  from  this  point  for- 
ward in  the  remainder  of  North,  and  in  the  whole  of 
South  America,  we  are  left  without  definite  information 
except  with  respect  to  the  Lagunas.  It  shows  how  in- 
completely the  work  has  been  done  in  American  Eth- 
nology, that  the  unit  of  their  social  system  has  been  but 
partially  discovered,  and  its  significance  not  understood. 
Still,  there  are  traces  of  it  in  the  early  Spanish  authors, 
and  direct  knowledge  of  it  in  a  few  later  writers,  which 
when  brought  together  will  leave  but  little  doubt  of  the 
ancient  universal  prevalence  of  the  gentile  organization 
throughout  the  Indian  family. 

There  are  current  traditions  in  many  gentes,  like  th?.'t 
of  the  Moquis,  of  the  transformation  of  their  first  pro- 
genitors, from  the  animal,  or  inanimate  object,  whicn  be- 
came the  symbol    of    the  gens,    into    men  and    women 

I   The    Shawnees    formerly   worshiped    a    Female    Deity,    callef 
Go-gome-tha-mii,    "Our  Grand-Mother." 
3   "Schoolcraft's  Hist.,   etc.,  of  Indian  Trlbp,.*  "  Iv    ^6. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  igg 

Thus,  the  Crane  gens  of  the  Ojibwas,  have  a  legend  that 
a  pair  of  cranes  flew  over  the  wide  area  from  the  Gulf 
to  the  Great  Lakes  and  from  the  prairies  of  the  Missis- 
sippi to  the  Atlantic  in  quest  of  a  place  where  subsist- 
ence was  most  abundant,  and  finally  selected  the  Rapids 
on  the  outlet  of  Lake  Superior,  since  celebrated  for  its 
fisheries.  Having  alighted  on  the  bank  of  the  river  and 
folded  their  wings  the  Great  Spirit  immediately  changed 
them  into  a  man  and  woman,  who  became  the  progeni- 
tors of  the  Crane  gens  of  the  Ojibwas.  There  are  a 
number  of  gentes  in  the  diflferent  tribes  who  abstain  from 
eating  the  animal  whose  name  they  bear ;  but  this  is  far 
from  universal. 

2.  Lagunas.  The  Laguna  Pueblo  Indians  are  organ- 
ized in  gentes,  with  descent  in  the  female  line,  as  appears 
from  an  address  of  Rev.  Samuel  Gorman  before  the  His- 
torical Society  of  New  Mexico  in  i860.  "Each  town  is 
classed  into  tribes  or  families,  and  each  of  these  groups 
is  named  after  some  animal,  bird,  herb,  timber,  planet,  or 
one  of  the  four  elements.  In  the  pueblo  of  Laguna, 
which  is  one  of  above  one  thousand  inhabitants,  there 
are  seventeen  of  these  tribes ;  some  are  called  bear,  some 
deer,  some  rattlesnake,  some  corn,  some  wolf,  some  wa- 
ter, etc.,  etc.  The  children  are  of  the  same  tribe  as  their 
mother.  And,  according  to  ancient  custom,  two  persons 
of  the  same  tribe  are  forbidden  to  marry ;  but,  recently, 
this  custom  begins  to  be  less  rigorouslv  observed  than 
anciently." 

"Their  land  is  held  in  common,  as  the  property  of  the 
community,  but  after  a  person  cultivates  a  lot  he  has  a 
personal  claim  to  it,  which  he  can  sell  to  any  one  of  the 
same  community ;  or  else  when  he  dies  it  belongs  to  his 
widow  or  daughters;  or,  if  he  were  a  single  man,  it  re- 
mains in  his  father's  family."  ^  That  wife  or  daughter 
inherit  from  the  father  is  doubtful. 

3.  Aztecs,  Tezcucans  and  Tlacopans.  The  question  of 
the  organization  of  these,  and  the  remaining  Nahnatlac 
tribes  of  Mexico,  in  gentes  will  be  considered  in  the  next 
ensuing  chapter. 

I    "Address,"  p.   12. 


186  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

4,  Mayas  of  Yucatan.  Herrera  makes  frequent  ref- 
erence to  the  "kindred,"  and  in  such  a  manner  with  re- 
gard to  the  tribes  in  Mexico,  Central  and  South  America 
as  to  imply  the  existence  of  a  body  of  persons  organized 
on  the  basis  of  consanguinity  much  more  numerous  than 
would  be  found  apart  from  gentes.  Thus :  "He  that 
killed  a  free  man  was  to  make  satisfaction  to  the  children 
and  kindred."  ^  It  was  spoken  of  the  aborigines  of  Nic- 
aragua, and  had  it  been  of  the  Iroquois,  among  whom 
the  usage  was  the  same,  the  term  kindred  would  have 
been  equivalent  to  gens.  And  again,  speaking  generally 
of  the  Maya  Indians  of  Yucatan,  he  remarks  that  "when 
any  satisfaction  was  to  be  made  for  damages,  if  he  who 
was  adjudged  to  pay  was  like  to  be  reduced  to  poverty, 
the  kindred  contributed."  ^  In  this  another  gentile  usage 
may  be  recognized.  Again,  speaking  of  the  Aztecs ;  "if 
they  were  guilty,  no  favor  or  kindred  could  save  them 
from  death."  ^  One  more  citation  to  the  same  effect 
may  be  made,  applied  to  the  Florida  Indians  who  were 
organized  in  gentes.  He  observes  "that  they  were  ex- 
travagantly fond  of  their  children,  and  cherished  them, 
the  parents  and  kindred  lamenting  such  as  died  a  whole 
year."*  The  early  observers  noticed,  as  a  peculiarity  of 
Indian  society,  that  large  numbers  of  persons  were 
bound  together  by  the  bond  of  kin,  and  therefore  the 
group  came  to  be  mentioned  as  "the  kindred."  But  they 
did  not  carry  the  scrutiny  far  enough  to  discover,  what 
was  probably  the  truth,  that  the  kindred  formed  a  gens, 
and,  as  such,  the  unit  of  their  social  system. 

Herrera  remarks  further  of  the  Mayas,  that  "they 
were  wont  to  observe  their  pedigrees  very  much,  and 
therefore  thought  themselves  all  related,  and  were  help- 
ful to  one  another They  did  not  marry  mothers,  or 

sisters-in-law,  nor  any  that  bore  the  same  name  as  their 
father,  which  was  looked  upon  as  unlawful."  ^    The  ped- 

I   "General     History     of     America,"    Lend,    ed.,    1726.    Stevens' 
Trans.,   ill,   299. 
a   "lb.."  Iv.   171. 

3  "lb.,"    iii.    203. 

4  "lb.,"   iv,    33. 

5  "General  History  of  Ameiica,"  iv,  171. 


QENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  187 

igree  of  an  Indian  under  their  system  of  consanguinity 
could  have  no  significance  apart  from  a  gens ;  but  leav- 
ing this  out  of  view,  there  was  no  possible  way,  under 
Indian  institutions,  by  which  a  father  and  his  children 
could  bear  the  same  name  except  through  a  gens,  which 
conferred  a  common  gentile  name  upon  all  its  members. 
It  would  also  require  descent  in  the  male  line  to  bring 
father  and  children  into  the  same  gens.  The  statement 
shows,  moreover,  that  intermarriage  in  the  gens  among 
the  Mayas  was  prohibited.  Assuming  the  correctness  of 
Herrera's  words,  it  is  proof  conclusive  of  the  existence 
of  gentes  among  the  Mayas,  with  descent  in  the  male 
line,  Tylor,  in  his  valuable  work  on  the  "Early  His- 
tory of  Mankind,"  which  is  a  repository  of  widely-drawn 
and  well-digested  ethnological  information,  cites  the 
same  fact  from  another  source,  with  the  following  re- 
marks :  "The  analogy  of  the  North  American  Indian  cus- 
tom is  therefore  with  that  of  the  Australian  in  making 
clanship  on  the  female  side  a  bar  to  marriage,  but  if  we 
go  down  further  south  into  Central  America,  the  reverse 
custom,  as  in  China,  makes  its  appearance.  Diego  de 
Landa  says  of  the  people  of  Yucatan,  that)  no  one  took  a 
wife  of  his  name,  on  the  father's  side,  for  this  was  a  very 
vile  thing  among  them ;  but  they  might  marry  cousins 
german  on  the  mother's  side."  ^ 

XI.     South  American  Indian  Tribes. 

Traces  of  the  gens  have  been  found  in  all  parts  of 
South  America,  as  well  as  the  actual  presence  of  the 
Ganowanian  system  of  consanguinity,  but  the  subject 
has  not  been  fully  investigated.  Speaking  of  the  numer- 
ous tribes  of  the  Andes  brought  by  the  Incas  under  a 
species  of  confederation,  Herrera  observes  that  "this  va- 
riety of  tongues  proceeded  from  the  nations  being  di- 
vided into  races,  tribes,  or  clans."  ^  Here  in  the  clans 
the  existence  of  gentes  is  recognized.  Mr.  Tylor,  dis- 
cussing the  rules  with  respect  to  marriage  and  descent, 
remarks  that  "further  south,  below  the  Isthmus,  both  the 

I    "Early  History  of  Mankind,"   p.    287. 
3    "Gen.   Hist,   of  Amer.."   iv,    231. 


188  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

clanship  and  the  prohibition  re-appear  on  the  female  side. 
Bernau  says  that  among  the  Arrawaks  of  British  Gui- 
ana, 'Caste  is  derived  from  the  mother,  and  children  are 
allowed  to  marry  into  their  father's  family,  but  not  into 
that  of  their  mother.'  Lastly,  Father  Martin  Dobrizhof- 
fer  says  that  the  Guaranis  avoid,  as  highly  criminal,  mar- 
riage with  the  most  distant  relations;  and  speaking  of 

the  Abipones,  he  makes  the  following  statement : 

The  Abipones,  instructed  by  nature  and  the  example  of 
their  ancestors,  abhor  the  very  thought  of  marrying  any 
one  related  to  them  by  the  most  distant  tie  of  relation- 
ship.' '  *  These  references  to  the  social  system  of  the 
aborigines  are  vague ;  but  in  the  light  of  the  facts  al- 
ready presented  the  existence  of  gentes  with  descent  in 
the  female  line,  and  with  intermarriage  in  the  gens  pro- 
hibited, renders  them  intelligible.  Brett  remarks  of  the 
Indian  tribes  in  Guiana  that  they  ''are  divided  into  fam- 
ilies, each  of  which  has  a  distinct  name,  as  the  Siwidi, 
Karuafudi,  Onisidi,  etc.  Unlike  our  families,  these  all 
descend  in  the  female  line,  and  no  individual  of  either 
sex  is  allowed  to  marry  another  of  the  same  family  name. 
Thus  a  woman  of  the  Siwidi  family  bears  the  same  name 
as  her  mother,  but  neither  her  father  nor  her  husband 
can  be  of  that  family.  Her  children  and  the  children  of 
her  daughters  will  also  be  called  Siwidi,  but  both  her 
sons  and  daughters  are  prohibited  from  an  alliance  with 
any  individual  bearing  the  same  name ;  though  they 
may  marry  into  the  family  of  their  father  if  they  choose. 
These  customs  are  strictly  observed,  and  any  breach  of 
them  would  be  considered  as  wicked."  ^  In  the  family 
of  this  writer  may  at  once  be  recognized  the  gens  in  its 
archaic  form.  All  the  South  American  tribes  above 
named,  with  the  exception  of  the  Andean,  were  when 
discovered  either  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  or 
in  the  Status  of  savagery.  Many  of  the  Peruvian  tribes 
concentrated  unrlcr  the  government  established  by  the 
Inca  Village  Indians  were  in  the  Lower  Status  ^'yi  bar- 

I    "Early  History  of  Mankind,"  p.   287. 

a   "Indian   Tribes  of  Guiana,"  p.  98;   cited  by  IjU*-bock       <J"Ufln 
of   Civilization,"   p.    98. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  189 

barism,  if  an  opinion  may  be  formed  from  the  imperfect 
description  of  their  domestic  institutions  found  in  Gar- 
cillasso  de  la  Vega. 

To  the  Village  Indians  of  North  and  South  America, 
whose  indigenous  culture  had  advanced  them  far  into, 
and  near  the  end  of,  the  Middle  Period  of  barbarism,  our 
attention  naturally  turns  for  the  transitional  history  of 
the  gentes.  The  archaic  constitution  of  the  gens  has 
been  shown ;  its  latest  phases  remain  to  be  presented  in 
the  gentes  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans ;  but  the  intermedi- 
ate changes,  both  of  descent  and  inheritance,  which  oc- 
curred in  the  Middle  Period,  are  essential  to  a  complete 
history  of  the  gentile  organization.  Our  information  is 
quite  ample  with  respect  to  the  earlier  and  later  condition 
of  this  great  institution,  but  defective  with  respect  to  the 
transitional  stage.  Where  the  gentes  are  found  in  any 
tribe  of  mankind  in  their  latest  form,  their  remote  an- 
cestors must  have  possessed  them  in  the  archaic  form; 
but  historical  criticism  demands  affirmative  proofs  rather 
than  deductions.  These  proofs  once  existed  among  the 
Village  Indians.  We  are  now  well  assured  that  their  sys- 
tem of  government  was  social  and  not  political.  The  up- 
per members  of  the  series,  namely,  the  tribe  and  the  con- 
federacy, meet  us  at  many  points ;  with  positive  evidence 
of  the  gens,  the  unit  of  the  system,  in  a  number  of  the 
tribes  of  Village  Indians.  But  we  are  not  able  to  place  our 
hands  upon  the  gentes  among  the  Village  Indians  in  gen- 
eral with  the  same  precise  information  afforded  by  the 
tribes  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism.  The  golden 
opportunity  was  presented  to  the  Spanish  conquerers  and 
colonists,  and  lost,  from  apparent  inability  to  understand 
a  condition  of  society  from  which  civilized  man  had  so 
far  departed  in  his  onward  progress.  Without  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  unit  of  their  social  system,  which  impressed 
its  character  upon  the  whole  organism  of  society,  the 
Spanish  histories  fail  entirely  in  the  portrayal  of  their 
governmental  institutions, 

A  glance  at  the  remains  of  ancient  architecture  in 
Central  America  and  Peru  sufficiently  proves  that  the 
Middle  Period  of  barbarism  was  one  of  great  progress  u\ 


190  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

human  development,  of  growing  knowledge,  and  of  ex- 
panding intelligence.  It  was  followed  by  a  still  more 
remarkable  period  in  the  Eastern  hemisphere  after  the 
invention  of  the  process  of  making  iron  had  given  that 
final  great  impulse  to  human  progress  which  was  to  bear 
a  portion  of  mankind  into  civilization.  Our  appreciation 
of  the  grandeur  of  man's  career  in  the  Later  Period  of 
barbarism,  when  inventions  and  discoveries  multiplied 
with  such  rapidity,  would  be  intensified  by  an  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  condition  of  society  in  the  Middle 
Period,  so  remarkably  exemplified  by  the  Village  Indi- 
ans. By  a  great  efifort,  attended  with  patient  labor,  it  may 
yet  be  possible  to  recover  a  large  portion  at  least  of  the 
treasures  of  knowledge  which  have  been  allowed  to  dis- 
appear. Upon  our  present  information  the  conclusion  is 
warrantable  that  the  .\merican  Indian  tribes  were  uni- 
versally organized  in  gentes  at  the  epoch  of  European 
discovery,  the  few  exceptions  found  not  being  sufficient 
to  disturb  the  general  rule. 


\ 


\ 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY 

The  Spanish  adventurers,  who  captured  the  Pueblo  of 
Mexico,  adopted  the  erroneous  theory  that  the  Aztec  gov- 
ernment was  a  monarchy,  analogous  in  essential  respects 
to  existing  monarchies  in  Europe.  This'  opinion  was 
adopted  generally  by  the  early  Spanish  writers,  without 
investigating  minutely  the  structure  and  principles  of  the 
Aztec  social  system.  A  terminology  not  in  agreement 
with  their  institutions  came  in  with  this  misconception 
which  has  vitiated  the  historical  narrative  nearly  as  com- 
pletely as  though  it  were,  in  the  main,  a  studied  fabrica- 
tion. With  the  capture  of  the  only  stronghold  the  Aztecs 
possessed,  their  governmental  fabric  was  destroyed,  Span- 
ish rule  was  substituted  in  its  place,  and  the  subject  of 
their  internal  organization  and  polity  was  allowed  sub- 
stantially to  pass  into  oblivion.  ^ 

The  Aztecs  and  their  confederate  tribes  were  ignorant 
of  iron  and  consequently  without  iron  tools;  they  had  no 
money,  and^  traded  by  barter  of  commodities ;  but  they 
worked  the  native  metals,  cultivated  by  irrigation,  manu- 
factured coarse  fabrics  of  cotton,  cons'tructed  joint-tene- 

»  The  historlps  of  Spanish  America  may  be  trusted  In  whatever  relates 
to  the  acts  of  the  Spaniards,  and  to  the  acts  and  personal  characteristics 
of  the  Indians;  in  whatever  relates  to  their  weapons,  implements  and 
ntensils.  fabrics,  food  and  raiment,  and  things  of  a  similar  character. 
But  in  whatever  relates  to  Indian  society  and  sovernmnnt,  their  social 
relations,  and  plan  of  life,  they  are  nearly" worthless,  l^ecanse  they  learned 
nothing  and  knew  nothing:  of  cither.  We  are  at  liberty  to  reject  them 
In  those  respects  and  camraence  anew:  using  any  facts  they  may  contain 
which  harmonize  with  what  is  known  of  Indian  society. 

191 


192  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

ment  houses  of  adobe-bricks  and  of  stone,  and  made 
earthenware  of  excellent  quality.  They  had,  therefore, 
attained  to  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism.  They  still 
held  their  lands  in  common,  lived  in  large  households 
composed  of  a  number  of  related  families ;  and,  as  there 
are  strong  reasons  for  believing-,  practiced  communism 
in  living  in  the  household.  It  is  rendered  reasonably 
certain  that  they  had  but  one  prepared  meal  each  day, 
a  dinner;  at  which  they  separated,  the  men  eating  first 
and  by  themselves,  and  the  women  and  children  after- 
wards. Having  neither  tables  nor  chairs  for  dinner  serv- 
ice they  had  not  learned  to  eat  their  single  daily  meal  in 
the  manner  of  civilized  nations.  These  features  of  their 
social  condition  show  sufficiently  their  relative  status  of 
advancement. 

In  connection  with  the  Village  Indians  of  other  parts 
of  Mexico  and  Central  America,  and  of  Peru,  they  af- 
forded the  best  exemplification  of  this  condition  of  anci- 
ent society  then  existing  on  the  earth.  They  represented 
one  of  the  great  stages  of  progress  toward  civilization  in 
which  the  institutions  derived  from  a  previous  ethnical 
period  are  seen  in  higher  advancement,  and  which  were 
to  be  transmitted,  in  the  course  of  human  experience,  to 
an  ethnical  condition  still  higher,  and  undergo  still  further 
development  before  civilization  was  possible.  But  the 
Village  Indians  were  not  destined  to  attain  the  Upper 
Status  of  barbarism  so  well  represented  by  the  Homeric 
Greeks. 

The  Indian  pueblos  in  the  valley  of  Mexico  revealed 
to  Europeans  a  lost  condition  of  ancient  society,  which 
was  so  remarkable  and  peculiar  that  it  aroused  at  the 
time  an  insatiable  curiosity.  More  volumes  have  been 
written,  in  the  proportion  of  ten  to  one,  upon  the  Mexi- 
can aborigines  and  the  Spanish  Conquest,  than  upon  any 
other  people  of  the  same  advancement,  or  upon  anv  event 
of  the  same  importance.  Anrl  yet,  there  is  no  people  con- 
cerning whose  institutions  and  plan  of  life  so  little  is  ac- 
curately known.  The  remarkable  spectacle  presented  so 
inflamed  the  imagination  that  romance  swept  the  field, 
and  has  held  it  to  the  present  hour.   Tl.e  failure  to  ascer- 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY  1S3 

tain  the  structure  of  Aztec  society  which  resulted  was  a 
serious  loss  to  the  history  of  mankind.  It  should  not  be 
made  a  cause  of  reproach  to  anyone,  but  rather  for  deep 
regret.  Even  that  which  has  been  written,  with  such 
painstaking  industry,  may  prove  useful  in  some  future 
attempt  to  reconstruct  the  history  of  the  Aztec  confeder- 
acy. Certain  facts  remain  of  a  positive  kind  from  which 
other  facts  may  be  deducted ;  so  that  it  is  not  improbable 
that  a  well-directed  original  investigation  may  yet  re- 
cover, measurably  at  least,  the  essential  features  of  the 
Aztec  social  system. 

The  ''kingdom  of  Mexico"  as  it  stands  in  the  early  his- 
tories, and  the  "empire  of  Mexico"  as  it  appears  in  the 
later,  is  a  fiction  of  the  imagination.  At  the  time  there 
was  a  seeming  foundation  for  describing  the  government 
as  a  monarcliy,  in  the  absence  of  a  correct  knowledge  of 
their  institutions ;  but  the  misconception  can  no  longer  be 
defended.  That  which  the  Spaniards  found  was  simply 
a  confederacy  of  three  Indian  tribes,  of  which  the  count- 
erpart existed  in  all  parts  of  the  continent,  and  they  had 
no  occasion  in  their  descriptions  to  advance  a  step  beyond 
this  single  fact.  The  government  was  administered  by 
a  council  of  chiefs,  with  the  co-operation  of  a  general 
commander  of  the  military  bands.  It  was  a  government 
of  two  powers ;  the  civil  being  represented  by  the  coun- 
cil, and  the  military  by  a  principal  war-chief.  Since  the 
institutions  of  the  confederate  tribes  were  essentially 
democratical,  the  government  may  be  called  a  military 
democracy,  if  a  designation  more  special  than  confeder- 
acy is  required. 

Three  tribes,  the  Aztecs  or  ^^lexicans,  the  Tezcucans 
and  the  Tlacopans,  were  united  in  the  Aztec  confeaer- 
acv,  which  gives  the  two  upper  members  of  the  organic 
social  series.  Whether  or  not  they  possessed  the  first 
and  the  second,  namely,  the  gens  and  the  phratry,  does 
not  appear  in  a  definite  form  in  any  of  the  Spanish 
writers ;  but  they  have  vaguely  described  certain  institu- 
tions which  can  only  be  understood  by  supplying  the  lost 
members  of  the  series.  Whilst  the  phratry  is  not  essen- 
tial   it  is  otherwise  with  the  gens,  because  it  is  the  unit 


/ 

194  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

upon  which  the  social  system  rests.  Without  entering 
the  vast  and  unthreadable  labyrinth  of  Aztec  affairs  as 
they  now  stand  historically,  I  shall  venture  to  invite  at- 
tention to  a  few  particulars  only  of  the  Aztec  social  sys- 
tem, which  may  tend  to  illustrate  its  real  character.  Be- 
fore doing  this,  the  relations  of  the  confederated  to  sur- 
rounding tribes  should  be  noticed. 

The  Aztecs  were  one  of  seven  kindred  tribes  who  had 
migrated  from  the  north  and  settled  in  and  near  the 
valley  of  Mexico ;  and  who  were  among  the  historical 
tribes  of  that  country  at  the  epoch  of  the  Spanish  Con- 
quest. They  called  themselves  collectively  the  Nahu- 
atlacs  in  their  traditions.  Acosta,  who  visted  Mexico  in 
1585,  and  whose  work  was  published  at  Seville  in  1589, 
has  given  the  current  native  tradition  of  their  migrations, 
one  after  the  other,  from  Aztlan,  with  their  names  and 
places  of  settlement.  He  states  the  order  of  their  arrival 
as  follows:  1.  Sochimilcas,  "Nation  of  the  Seeds  of  Flow- 
ers," who  settled  upon  Lake  Xochimilco,  on  the  south 
slope  of  the  valley  of  Mexico ;  2.  Chalcas,  "People  of 
Mouths,"  who  came  long  after  the  former  and  settled 
near  them,  on  Lake  Chalco;  3.  Tepanecans,  "People  of 
the  Bridge,"  who  settled  at  Azcopozalco,  west  of  Lake 
Tezcuco,  on  the  western  slope  of  the  valley ;  4.  Culhuas, 
"A  Crooked  People,"  who  settled  on  the  east  side  of  Lake 
Tezcuco,  and  were  afterwards  known  as  Tezcucans ; 
5.  Tlatluicans,  "Men  of  the  Sierra,"  who,  finding  the 
valley  appropriated  around  the  lake,  passed  over  the  Si- 
erra southward  and  settled  upon  the  other  side ;  6.  Tlas- 
calans,  "Men  of  Bread,"  who,  after  living  for  a  time 
with  the  Tepanecans,  finally  settled  beyond  the  valley 
eastward,  at  Tlascala ;  7.  The  Aztecs,  who  came  last  and 
occupied  the  site  of  the  present  city  of  Mexico.  *  Acosta 
further  observes  that  they  came  "from  far  countries 
which  lie  toward  the  north,  where  now  they  have  found 
a  kingdom  which  they  call  New  Mexco."  '     The  same 

'  "ThR  Natural  and  Moral  TTistory  of  the  Kast  and  West  Indies," 
Lond.    pd.,    Ifi04.      Orimstono's   Trans.,   pp.    497-504. 

»  "The  Natural  and  Moral  Dlstory  o  fthe  East  and  West  Indies," 
p.  499. 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY  195 

tradition  is  given  by  Herrera,*  and  also  by  Clavigero.' 
It  will  be  noticed  that  the  Tlacopans  are  not  mentioned. 
They  were,  in  all  probability,  a  subdivision  of  the  Tepane- 
cans  who  remained  in  the  original  area  of  that  tribe, 
while  the  remainder  seem  to  have  removed  to  a  territory 
immediately  south  of  the  Tlascalans,  where  they  were 
found  under  the  name  of  the  Tepeacas.  The  latter  had 
the  same  legend  of  the  seven  caves,  and  spoke  a  dialect 
of  the  Nahuatlac  language/ 

This  tradition  embodies  one  significant  fact  of  a  kind 
that  could  not  have  been  invented ;  namely,  that  the  seven 
tribes  were  of  immediate  common  origin,  the  fact  being 
confirmed  by  their  dialects ;  and  a  second  fact  of  impor- 
tance, that  they  came  from  the  north.  It  shows  that 
they  were  originally  one  people,  who  had  fallen  into 
seven  and  more  tribes  by  the  natural  process  of  segmen- 
tation. Moreover,  it  was  this  same  fact  which  rendered 
the  Aztec  confederacy  possible  as  well  as  probable,  a  com- 
mon language  being  the  essential  basis  of  such  organiza- 
tions. 

The  Aztecs  found  the  best  situations  in  the  valley  occu- 
pied, and  after  several  changes  of  position  they  finally 
settled  upon  a  small  expanse  of  dry  land  in  the  midst 
of  a  marsh  bordered  with  fields  of  pedregal  and  with 
natural  ponds.  Here  they  founded  the  celebrated  pueblo 
of  Mexico  (Tenochtitlan),  A.  D.  1325,  according  to 
Clavigero,  one  hundred  and  ninety-six  years  prior  to  the 
Spanish  Conquest.*  They  were  few  in  number  and  poor 
in  condition.  But  fortunately  for  them,  the  outlet  of 
Lakes  Xochimilco  and  Chalo  and  rivulets  from  the  west- 
ern hills  flowed  past  their  site  into  Lake  Tezcuco.  Hav- 
ing the  sagacity  to  perceive  the  advantages  of  the  loca- 
tion they  succeeded,  by  means  of  causeways  and  dikes, 
in  surrounding  their  pueblo  with  an  artificial  pond  of 
large  extent,  the  waters  being  furnished  from  the  sources 

>  "Opneral  History  of  i^mprica,"  Lond.  ed..  172r>,  Stevens'  Trans., 
iii.    ISS. 

=  "History  of  Mexico,"  Philadelphia  ed.,  1817.  Cullen's  Trans.,  I, 
119. 

'  Herrera.  "Hist,  of  Amer.."  iil,   110. 

*   "History  of  Mexico,  loc.  cit,  1,  162. 


196  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

named ;  and  the  level  of  Lake  Tezcuco  being  higher  then 
than  at  present,  it  gave  them,  when  the  whole  work  was 
completed,  the  most  secure  position  of  any  tribe  in  the 
valley.  The  mechanical  engineering  by  which  they 
accomplished  this  result  was  one  of  the  greatest  achieve- 
ments of  the  Aztecs,  and  one  without  which  they  would 
not  probably  have  risen  above  the  level  of  the  surround- 
ing tribes.  Independence  and  prosperity  followed,  and 
in  Jime  a  controlling  influence  over  the  valley  tribes. 
Such  was  the  manner,  and  so  recent  the  time  of  founding 
the  pueblo  according  to  Aztec  traditions  which  may  be 
accepted  as  substantially  trustworthy. 

At  the  epoch  of  the  Spanish  Conquest  five  of  the  seven 
tribes,  namely,  the  Aztecs,  Tezcucans,  Tlacopans,  Sochi- 
milcas,  and  Chalcans  resided  in  the  valley,  which  was  an 
area  of  quite  limited  dimensions,  about  equal  to  the  state 
of  Rhode  Island.  It  was  a  mountain  or  upland  basin 
having  no  outlet,  oval  in  form,  being  longest  from  north 
to  south,  one  hundred  and  twenty  miles  in  circuit,  and 
embracing  about  sixteen  hundred  square  miles  excluding 
the  surface  covered  by  water.  The  valley,  as  described, 
is  surrounded  by  a  series  of  hills,  one  range  rising  above 
another  with  depressions  between,  encompassing  the  val- 
ley with  a  mountain  barrier.  The  tribes  named  resided 
in  some  thirty  pueblos,  more  or  less,  of  which  that  of 
Mexico  was  the  largest.  There  is  no  evidence  that  any 
considerable  portion  of  these  tribes  had  colonized  out- 
side of  the  valley  and  the  adjacent  hill-slopes;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  the  remainder 
of  modern  Mexico  was  then  occupied  by  numerous  tribes 
who  spoke  languages  different  from  the  Nahuatlac,  and 
the  majority  of  whom  were  independent.  The  Tlascalans, 
the  Cholulans,  a  supposed  subdivision  of  the  former,  the 
Tepeacas,  the  Huexotzincos,  the  Meztitlans,  a  supposed 
subdivision  of  the  Tezcucans,  and  the  Thtluicans  were 
the  remaining  Nahuatlac  tribes  living  without  the  valley 
of  Mexico,  all  of  whom  were  independent  excepting  the 
last,  and  the  Tepeacas.  A  large  number  of  other  tribes, 
forming  some  seventeen  territorial  groups,  more  or  less, 
and  speaking  as  many  stock  languages,  held  the  remain- 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY  197 

der  of  Mexico.  They  present,  in  their  state  of  dis- 
integration and  independence,  a  nearly  exact  repetition 
of  the  tribes  of  the  United  States  and  British  America, 
at  the  time  of  their  discovery,  a  century  or  more  later. 

Prior  to  A.  D.  1426,  when  the  Aztec  confederacy  was 
formed,  very  little  had  occurred  in  the  affairs  of  the  val- 
ley tribes  of  historical  importance.  They  were  disunited 
and  belligerent,  and  without  influence  beyond  their  im- 
mediate localities.  About  this  time  the  superior  position 
of  the  Aztecs  began  to  manifest  its  results  in  a  prepon- 
derance of  numbers  and  of  strength.  Under  their  war- 
chief,  Itzcoatl,  the  previous  supremacy  of  the  Tezcucans 
and  Tlacopans  was  overthrown,  and  a  league  or  confed- 
eracy was  established  as  a  consequence  of  their  previous 
wars  against  each  other.  It  was  an  alliance  between 
the  three  tribes,  offensive  and  defensive,  with  stipulations 
for  the  division  among  them,  in  certain  proportions,  of 
the  spoils,  and  the  after  tributes  of  subjugated  tribes.^ 
These  tributes,  which  consisted  of  the  manufactured  fab- 
rics and  horticultural  products  of  the  villages  subdued, 
seem  to  have  been  enforced  with  system,  and  with  rigor 
of  exaction. 

The  plan  of  organization  of  this  confederacy  has  been 
lost.  From  the  absence  of  particulars  it  is  now  difficult 
to  determine  whether  it  was  simply  a  league  to  be  con- 
tinued or  dissolved  at  pleasure ;  or  a  consolidated  organ- 
ization, like  that  of  the  Iroquois,  in  which  the  parts  were 
adjusted  to  each  other  in  permanent  and  definite  rela- 
tions. Each  tribe  was  independent  in  whatever  related 
to  local  self-government ;  but  the  three  were  externall}- 
one  people  in  whatever  related  to  aggression  or  defense. 
While  each  tribe  had  its  own  council  of  chiefs,  and  its 
own  head  war-chief,  the  war-chief  of  the  Aztecs  was  the 
commander-in-chief  of  the  confederate  bands.  This  may 
be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  Tezcucans  and  Tlaco- 
pans had  a  voice  either  in  the  election  or  in  the  confirma- 
tion of  the  Aztec  war-chief.     The  acquisition  of  the  chief 

I    ClaviRero,   "Hist,  uf  Mex.,"   i.  229:  Herrera,  lil,  312:  Prescott, 
"Conq.   of  Mex.."   1,    IS. 


Ids  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

command  by  the  Aztecs  tends  to  show  that  their  influ- 
ence predominated  in  establishing  the  terms  upon  v^^hich 
the  tribes  confederated. 

Nezahualcojotl  had  been  deposed,  or  at  least  dispos- 
sessed of  his  office,  as  principal  war-chief  of  the  Tezcu- 
cans,  to  which  he  was  at  this  time  (1426)  restored  by 
Aztec  procurement.  The  event  may  be  taken  as  the  date 
of  the  formation  of  the  confederacy  or  league  which- 
ever it  was. 

Before  discussing  the  limited  number  of  facts  which 
tend  to  illustrate  the  character  of  this  organization,  a 
brief  reference  should  be  made  to  what  the  confederacy 
accomplished  in  acquiring  territorial  domination  during 
the  short  period  of  its  existence. 

From  A.  D.  1426  to  1520,  a  period  of  ninety-four  years, 
the  confederacy  was  engaged  in  frequent  wars  with  adja- 
cent tribes,  and  particularly  with  the  feeble  Village 
Indians  southward  from  the  valley  of  Mexico  to  the 
Pacific,  and  thence  eastward  well  toward  Guatemala. 
They  began  with  those  nearest  in  position  whom  they 
overcame,  through  superioi  numbers  and  concentrated 
action,  and  subjected  to  tribute.  The  villages  in  this 
area  were  numerous  but  small,  consisting  in  many  cases 
of  a  single  large  structure  of  adobe-brick  or  of  stone, 
and  in  some  cases  of  several  such  structures  grouped  to- 
gether. These  joint-tenement  houses  interposed  serious 
hinderances  to  Aztec  conquest,  but  they  did  not  prove 
insuperable.  These  forays  were  continued  from  time  to 
time  for  the  avowed  object  of  gathering  spoil,  imposing 
tribute,  and  capturing  prisoners  for  sacrifice  ;*  until  the 

>  The  -Aztecs.  like  the  Northern  Indians,  neither  exchanged  nor  re- 
leased prisoners.  Amonjj  the  hitter  the  .<take  was  the  doom  of  the 
captive  unless  saved  hy  adoption :  but  among  the  former,  under  the 
teachings  of  the  priesthood,  the  unfortunate  captive  was  offered  as  a 
sacrifice  to  the  principal  god  they  worshiped.  To  utilize  the  life  of 
the  prisoner  in  the  service  Of  the  gods,  a  life  forfeited  by  the  immem- 
orial usages  of  savages  and  barbarians,  was  the  high  conception  of 
the  nrst  hierarchy  in  the  order  of  institutions.  .\n  organized  priest- 
liood  first  appeared  among  the  American  aborigines  in  the  Middle  Sta- 
tus of  barbarism:  ;and  it  stands  connected  with  the  invention  of  idol3 
and  human  sacrifices,  as  a  means  of  acquiring  authority  over  man- 
kind   through    the    religious    sentiments.      It    probably    has    a    similar 


tHE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY  199 

principal  tribes  within  the  area  named,  with  some  excep- 
tions, were  subdued  and  made  tributary,  including-  the 
scattered  villages  of  the  Totonacs  near  the  present 
Vera  Cruz. 

No  attempt  was  made  to  incorporate  these  tribes  in 
the  Aztec  confederacy,  which  the  barrier  of  language 
rendered  impossible  under  their  institutions.  They  were 
left  under  the  government  of  their  own  chiefs,  and  to  the 
practice  of  their  own  usages  and  customs.  In  some  cases 
a  collector  of  tribute  resided  among  them.  The  barren 
results  of  these  conquests  reveal  the  actual  character  of 
their  institutions.  Adomination  of  the  strong  over  the 
weak  for  no  other  object  than  to  enforce  an  unwilling 
tribute,  did  not  even  tend  to  the  formation  of  a  nation. 
If  organized  in  gentes,  there  was  no  way  for  an  individ- 
ual to  become  a  member  of  the  government  except 
through  a  gens,  and  no  way  for  the  admission  of  a  gens 
except  by  its  incorporation  among  the  Aztec,  Tezcucan, 
or  Tlacopan  gentes.  The  plan  ascribed  to  Romulus  of 
removing  the  gentes  of  conquered  Latin  tribes  to  Rome 
might  have  been  resorted  to  by  the  Aztec  confederacy 
with  respect  to  the  tribes  overrun ;  but  they  were  not 
sufficiently  advanced  to  form  such  a  conception,  even 
though  the  barrier  of  language  could  have  been  obviated. 
Neither  could  colonists  for  the  same  reason,  if  sent 
among  them,  have  so  far  assimilated  the  conquered  tribes 
as  to  prepare  them  for  incorporation  in  the  Aztec  social 
system.  As  it  was  the  confederacy  gained  no  strength 
by  the  terrorism  it  created ;  or  by  holding  these  tribes 
under  burdens,  inspired  with  enmity  and  ever  ready  to 
revolt.  It  seems,  however,  that  they  used  the  military 
bands  of  subjugated  tribes  in  some  cases,  and  shared 
with  them  the  spoils.     All  the  Aztecs  could  do,  after 

history  in  the  principal  tribes  of  mankind.  Tliree  successive  usages 
with  respect  to  captives  appeared  in  the  three  subperiods  of  bar- 
barism. In  the  first  he  was  burned  at  the  stake,  in  the  second  he  wag 
sacrificed  to  the  gods,  and  in  the  third  lie  was  made  a  slave.  All 
alike  thoy  proceeded  upon  the  principle  that  the  life  of  the  prisoner 
was  forfeited  tn  his  captor.  This  principle  hccame  5:0  deeply  seated 
In  the  human  iiiiud  th.it  clviliMtion  and  Christianity  combined  were 
leqnred   for   its   displacement. 


200  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

forming  the  confederacy,  was  to  expand  it  over  the 
remaining  Nahuatlac  tribes.  This  they  were  unable  to 
accompHsh.  The  Xochimilcas  and  Chalcans  were  not 
constituent  members  of  the  confederacy,  but  they  enjoyed 
a  nominal  independence,  though  tributary. 

This  is  about  all  that  can  now  be  discovered  of  the 
material  basis  of  the  so-called  kingdom  or  empire  of  the 
Aztecs.  The  confederacy  was  confronted  by  hostile  and 
independent  tribes  on  the  west,  northwest,  northeast, 
east,  and  southeast  sides :  as  witness,  the  Mechoacans  on 
the  west,  the  Otomies  on  the  northwest,  (scattered  bands 
of  the  Otomies  near  the  valley  had  been  placed  under 
tribute),  the  Chichimecs  or  wild  tribes  north  of  the 
Otomies,  the  Meztitlans  on  the  northeast,  the  Tlascalans 
on  the  east,  the  Cholulans  and  Huexotzincos  on  the 
southeast  and  beyond  them  the  tribes  of  the  Tabasco,  the 
tribes  of  Chiapas,  and  the  Zapotecs.  In  these  several 
directions  the  dominion  of  the  Aztec  confederacy  did 
not  extend  a  hundred  miles  beyond  the  valley  of  Mexico, 
a  portion  of  which  surrounding  area  was  undoubtedly 
neutral  ground  separating  the  confederacy  from  perpet- 
ual enemies.  Out  of  such  limited  materials  the  kingdom 
of  Mexico  of  the  Spanish  chronicles  was  fabricated,  and 
afterwards  magnified  into  the  Aztec  empire  of  current 
history. 

A  few  words  seem  to  be  necessary  concerning  the  pop- 
ulation of  the  valley  and  of  the  pueblo  of  Mexico.  No 
means  exist  for  ascertaining  the  number  of  the  people  in 
the  five  Nahuatlac  tribes  who  inhabited  the  valley.  Any 
estimate  must  be  conjectural.  As  a  conjecture  then, 
based  upon  what  is  known  of  their  horticulture,  their 
means  of  subsistence,  their  institutions,  their  limited  area, 
and  not  forgetting  the  tribute  they  received,  two  hundrec 
and  fifty  thousand  persons  in  the  aggregate  would  prob- 
ably be  an  excessive  estimate.  It  would  give  about  a 
hundred  and  sixty  persons  to  the  square  mile,  equal  to 
nearly  twice  the  present  average  pojHilation  of  the  state  of 
New  York,  and  about  equal  to  the  average  population  of 
Rhode  Island.  It  is  difficult  to  perceive  what  sufficient 
reason  can  be  assigned  for  so  large  a  number  of  inhab- 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY  20l 

itants  in  all  the  villages  within  the  valley,  said  to  have 
been  from  thirty  to  forty.  Those  who  claim  a  higher 
number  wall  be  bound  to  show  how  a  barbarous  people, 
without  flocks  and  herds,  and  without  field  agriculture, 
could  have  sustained  in  equal  areas  a  larger  number  of 
inhabitants  than  a  civilized  people  can  now  maintain 
armed  with  these  advantages.  It  cannot  be  show'n  for 
the  simple  reason  that  it  could  not  have  been  true.  Out 
of  this  population  thirty  thousand  may,  perhaps,  be 
assigned  to  the  pueblo  of  Mexico.' 

It  will  be  imnecessary  to  discuss  the  position  and  rela- 
tions of  the  valley  tribes  beyond  the  suggestions  made. 
The  Aztec  monarchy  should  be  dismissed  from  American 
aboriginal  history,  not  only  as  delusive,  but  as  a  misrep- 
resentation of  the  Indians,  who  had  neither  developed 
nor  invented  monarchical  institutions.  The  government 
they  formed  was  a  confederacy  of  tribes,  and  nothing 
more ;  and  probably  not  equal  in  plan  and  symmetry  wirh 
that  of  the  Iroquois.  In  dealing  with  this  organization. 
War-chief,  Sachem,  and  Chief  will  be  sufficient  to  distin- 
guish their  official  persons. 

The  pueblo  of  Mexico  was  the  largest  in  America. 
Romantically  situated  in  the  midst  of  an  artificial  lake, 
its  large  joint-tenement  houses  plastered  over  w'ith  gyp- 

I  There  is  some  difference  in  the  estimates  of  the  population 
of  Mexico  found  in  the  SpaAish  histories;  but  several  of  them 
concurred  in  the  number  of  houses,  which,  strange  to  say,  is 
placed  at  sixty  thousand.  Zuazo,  who  visited  Mexico  in  1521, 
wrote  sixty  thousand  inhabitants  (Prescott,  "Conq.  of  Mex.," 
ii,  112,  note);  the  Anonymous  Conqueror,  who  accompanied 
Cortes  also  wrote  sixty  thousand  Inhabitants,  "soixante  mille 
habitans"  ("H.  Ternaux-Compans,"  x,  92);  but  Gomora  and 
Martyr  wrote  sixty  thousand  houses,  and  this  estimate  has  been 
adopted  by  Clavigero  ("Hist,  of  Mex.,"  ii,  360)  by  Herrera 
("Hist,  of  Amer.,"  ii,  360),  and  by  Prescott  (Conq.  of  Mex.," 
ii.ll2).  Soils  says  sixty  thousand  families  ("Hist.  Conq.  of 
Mex.,  1.  c,"  i,  393).  This  estimate  would  give  a  population  of 
300,000,  although  London  at  that  time  contained  but  145,000 
inhabitants  (Black's  "London."  p.  5).  Finally,  Torquemada,  cited 
by  Clavigero  (ii,  360,  note),  boldly  writes  one  hundred  and 
twenty  tliousand  houses.  There  can  scarcely  be  a  doubt  that 
the  houses  in  this  pueblo  were  in  general  large  communal,  or 
joint-tenement  houses,  like  those  in  New  Mexico  of  the  same 
period,  large  enough  to  accommodate  from  ten  to  tifty  and  a 
hundred  families  in  each.  At  either  number  the  mistake  is 
egregious.  Zuazo  and  the  Annonymous  Conqueror  came  tlie 
nearest  to  a  respeotable  estimate,  because  they  did  not  much 
more   than  double   the  probable   number. 


20S  ANCIENT  SOCiETY 

sum,  which  made  them  a  brilliant  white,  and  approached 
by  causeways,  it  presented  to  the  Spaniards,  in  the  dis- 
tance, a  striking  and  enchanting-  spectacle.  It  was  a  rev- 
elation of  an  ancient  society  lying  two  ethnical  periods 
back  of  European  society,  and  eminently  calculated,  from 
its  orderly  plan  of  life,  to  awaken  curiosity  and  inspire 
enthusiasm.  A  certain  amount  of  extravagance  of  opin- 
ion was  unavoidable. 

A  few  particulars  have  been  named  tending  to  show 
the  extent  of  Aztec  advancement  to  which  some  others 
may  now  be  added.  Ornamental  gardens  were  found, 
magazines  of  weapons  and  of  military  costumes,  im- 
proved apparel,  manufactured  fabrics  of  cotton  of  supe- 
rior workmanship,  improved  implements  and  utensils, 
and  an  increased  variety  of  food ;  picture-writing,  used 
chiefly  to  indicate  the  tribute  in  kind  each  subjugated 
village  was  to  pay ;  a  calendar  for  measuring  time,  and 
open  markets  for  the  barter  of  commodities.  Adminis- 
trative offices  had  been  created  to  meet  the  demands  of 
a  growing  municipal  life;  a  priesthood,  with  a  temple 
worship  and  a  ritual  including  human  sacrifies,  had  been 
established.  The  office  of  head  war-chief  had  also  risen 
into  increased  importance.  These,  and  other  circum- 
stances of  their  condidtion,  not  necessary  to  be  detailed, 
imply  a  corresponding  development  of  their  institutions. 
Such  are  some  of  the  differences  between  the  Lower  and 
the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism,  as  illustrated  by  the  rel- 
ative conditions  of  the  Iroquois  and  the  Aztecs,  both 
having  doubtless  the  same  original  institutions. 

With  these  preliminary  suggestions  made,  the  three 
most  important  and  most  difficult  questions  with  respect 
to  the  Aztec  social  system,  remain  to  be  considered. 
They  relate  first,  to  the  existence  of  Gentes  and  Phra- 
tries ;  second,  the  existence  and  functions  of  the  Council 
of  Chiefs ;  and,  third,  the  existence  and  functions  of  the 
office  of  General  Military  Commander,  held  by  Monte- 
zuma. 
T.     The  Existence  of  Gentes  and  Phratries. 

It  may  seem  singular  that  the  early  Spanish  writers 
did  not  discover  the  Aztec  gentes,  if  in  fact  they  existed; 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY  203 

but  the  case  was  nearly  the  same  with  the  Iroquois  under 
the  observation  of  our  own  people  more  than  two  hun- 
dred years.  The  existence  among-  them  of  clans,  named 
after  animals,  was  pointed  out  at  an  early  day,  but  with- 
out suspecting  that  it  was  the  unit  of  a  social  system 
upon  which  both  the  tribe  and  the  confederacy  rested.  * 
The  failure  of  the  Spanish  investigators  to  notice  the 
existence  of  the  gentile  organization  among  the  tribes  of 
Spanish  America  would  afford  no  proof  of  its  non-exist- 
ence ;  but  if  it  did  exist,  it  would  simply  prove  that  their 
work  was  superficial  in  this  respect. 

There  is  a  large  amount  of  indirect  and  fragmentary 
evidence  in  the  Spanish  writers  pointing  both  to  the  gens 
and  the  phratry,  some  of  which  will  now  be  considered. 
Reference  has  been  made  to  the  frequent  use  of  the  term 
"kindred"  by  Herrera,  showing  that  groups  of  persons 
were  noticed  who  were  bound  together  by  affinities  of 
blood.  This,  from  the  size  of  the  group,  seems  to  require 
a  gens.  The  term  "lineage"  is  sometimes  used  to  indi- 
cate a  still  larger  group,  and  implying  a  phratry. 

The  pueblo  of  Mexico  was  divided  geographically  into 
four  quarters,  each  of  which  was  occupied  by  a  lineage, 
a  body  of  people  more  nearly  related  by  consanguinity 
among  themselves  than  they  were  to  the  inhabitants  of 
the  other  quarters.  Presumptively,  each  lineage  was  a 
phratry.  Each  quarter  was  again  subdivided,  and  each 
local  subdivision  was  occupied  by  a  community  of  per- 
sons bound  together  by  some  common  tie.'  JPresump- 
tively,  this  community  of  persons  was  a  gens.  Turning 
to  the  kindred  tribe  of  Tlascalans,  the  same  facts  nearly 
re-appear.  Their  pueblo  was  divided  into  four  quarters, 
each  occupied  by  a  lineage.  Each  had  its  own  Teuctli 
or  head  war-chief,  its  distinctive  military  costume,  and 
its  own  standard  and  blazon.'  As  one  people  they  were 
under  the  government  of  a  council  of  chiefs,  which  the 
Spaniards  honored  with  the  name  of  the  Tlascalan  sen- 
a 

»   "League  of  the  Iroquois,"  p.  78. 

»   Herrera.  iii,  194.  209. 

•   Herrera,   ii,   279,  .'504  ;   Clavigero,   i,   140. 


204  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

ate.^  Cholula,  in  like  manner,  \Yas  divided  into  six 
quarters,  called  wards  by  Herrera,  which  leads  to  the 
same  inference.  ^  The  x\ztecs  in  their  social  subdivisions 
having  arranged  among  themselves  the  parts  of  the 
pueblo  they  were  severally  to  occupy,  these  geographical 
districts  would  result  from  their  mode  of  settlement.  If 
the  brief  account  of  these  quarters  at  the  foundation  of 
Mexico,  given  by  Herrera,  who  follows  Acosta,  is  read 
in  the  light  of  this  explanation,  the  truth  of  the  matter 
will  be  brought  quite  near.  After  mentioning  the  build- 
ing of  a  "chapel  of  lime  and  stone  for  the  idol,"  Herrera 
proceeds  as  follows :  "When  this  was  done,  the  idol 
ordered  a  priest  to  bid  the  chief  men  divide  themselves, 
with  their  kindred  and  followers,  into  four  wards  or 
quarters,  leaving  the  house  that  had  been  built  for  him 
to  rest  in  the  middle,  and  each  party  to  build  as  they 
liked  best.  These  are  the  four  quarters  of  Mexico  now 
called  St.  John,  St.  Mary  the  Round,  St.  Paul  and  St. 
Sebastian.  That  division  being  acordingly  made,  their 
idol  again  directed  them  to  distribute  among  themselves 
the  gods  he  should  name,  and  each  ward  to  appoint  pecul- 
iar places  where  the  gods  should  be  worshiped ;  and  thus 
every  quarter  has  several  smaller  wards  in  it  according  to 
the  number  of  their  gods  this  idol  called  them  to  adore  .  .  . 
Thus  Mexico,  Tenochtitlan,  was  founded  ....  When 
the  aforesaid  partition  was  made,  those  who  thought 
themselves  injured,  with  their  kindred  and  followers, 
went  away  to  seek  some  other  place, "^namely,  Tlatelueco, 
which  was  adjacent.  It  is  a  reasonable  interpretation 
of  this  language  that  they  divided  by  kin,  first  into  four 
general  divisions,  and  these  into  smaller  subdivisions, 
which  is  the  usual  formula  for  stating  results.  But  the 
actual  process  was  the  exact  reverse ;  namely,  each  body 
of  kindred  located  in  an  area  by  themselves,  and  the 
several  bodies  in  such  a  way  as  to  bring-  those  most 
nearly   related   in     geographical    connection    with    each 


1  Olavigero,  1,  147;  The  four  war-chiefs  were  ex  officio  mem- 
bers  of  the   Council.       lb.,     11,    137. 
a   Herrera.,   11,   310. 
3  Herrera,    HI,    194. 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY  205 

Other.  Assuming  that  the  lowest  subdivision  was  a 
gens,  and  that  each  quarter  was  occupied  by  a  phratry, 
composed  of  related  gentes,  the  primary  distribution  of 
the  Aztecs  in  their  pueblo  is  perfectly  intelligible.  With- 
out this  assumption  it  is  incapable  of  a  satisfactory  ex- 
planation. When  a  people,  organized  in  gentes,  phratri^s 
and  tribes,  settled  in  a  town  or  city,  they  located  by 
gentes  and  by  tribes,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  of  their 
social  organization.  The  Grecian  and  Roman  tribes 
settled  in  their  cities  in  this  manner.  For  example,  the 
three  Roman  tribes  were  organized  in  gentes  and  curiae, 
the  curia  being  the  analogue  of  the  phratry ;  and  they 
settled  at  Rome  by  gentes,  by  curiae  and  by  tribes.  The 
Ramnes  occupied  the  Palatine  Hill.  The  Titles  were 
mostly  on  the  Quirinal,  and  the  Luceres  mostly  on  the 
Esquiline.  If  the  Aztecs  were  in  gentes  and  phratries, 
having  but  one  tribe,  they  would  of  necessity  be  found 
in  as  many  quarters  as  they  had  phratries,  with  each 
g-ens  of  the  same  phratry  in  the  main  locally  by  itself. 
As  husband  and  wife  were  of  different  gentes,  and  the 
•children  were  of  the  gens  of  the  father  or  mother  as 
descent  was  in  the  male  or  the  female  line,  the  pre- 
ponderating number  in  each  locality  would  be  of  the 
same  gens. 

Their  military  organization  was  based  upon  these  so- 
cial divisions.  As  Nestor  advised  Agamemnon  to  arrange 
i\,e  troops  by  phratries  and  by  tribes,  the  Aztecs  seem 
to  have  arranged  themselves  by  gentes  and  by  phratries. 
In  the  Mexican  Chronicles,  by  the  native  author  Tezo- 
zomoc  (for  a  reference  to  the  following  passage  in 
which  I  am  indebted  to  my  friend  Mr.  Ad.  F.  Bandelier, 
of  Highland,  Illinois,  who  is  now  engaged  upon  its 
translation),  a  proposed  invasion  of  Michoacan  is  refer- 
red to.  Axaycatl  "spoke  to  the  Mexican  captains  Tlaca- 
tec.atl  and  Tlacochcalcatl,  and  to  all  the  others,  and  in- 
quired whether  all  the  Mexicans  w-ere  prepared,  after  the 
us  wges  and  customs  of  each  ward,  each  one  with  its  cap- 
taijis ;  and  if  so  that  they  should  begin  to  march,  and 
th*  t  all  were  to  reunite  at  Matlatzinco  Toluca."^     It  in- 

I  'Cronioa  Mexicana,"  De  Fernando  de  Alvarado  Tezozomoc, 
^h.    11,  p.  83,  Kingsborough,  v.  ix. 


206  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

dicates  that  the  military  organization  was  by  gentes  and 
by  phratries. 

An  inference  of  the  existence  of  Aztec  gentes  arises 
also  from  their  land  tenure.  Clavigero  remarks  that 
"the  lands  which  were  called  Altepetlalli  [altepetl=pue- 
blo]  that  is,  those  of  the  communities  of  cities  and  vil- 
lages, were  divided  into  as  many  parts  as  there  were 
districts  in  a  city,  and  every  district  possessed  its  own 
part  entirely  distinct  from,  and  independent  of  every 
other.  These  lands  could  not  be  alienated  by  any  means 
whatever."  *  In  each  of  these  communities  we  are  led 
to  recognize  a  gens,  whose  localization  was  a  necessary 
consequence  of  their  social  system.  Qavigero  puts  the 
districts  for  the  community,  whereas  it  was  the  latter 
which  made  the  district,  and  which  owned  the  lands  in 
common.  The  element  of  kin,  which  united  each  com- 
munity, omitted  by  Clavigero  is  supplied  by  Herrera. 
"There  were  other  lords,  called  major  parents  [sachems], 
whose  landed  property  all  belonged  to  one  lineage 
[gens],  which  lived  in  one  district,  and  there  were  many 
of  them  when  the  lands  were  distributed  at  the  time 
New  Spain  was  peopled :  and  each  lineage  received  its 
own,  and  have  possessed  them  until  now;  and  these 
lands  did  not  belong  to  any  one  in  particular,  but  to  all 
m  common,  and  he  who  possessed  them  could  not  sell 
them,  although  he  enjoyed  them  for  life  and  left  them  to 
his  sons  and  heirs ;  and  if  a  house  died  out  they  were 
left  to  the  nearest  parent  to  whom  they  were  given  and 
to  no  other,  who  administered  the  same  district  or  line- 
age." *  In  this,  remarkable  statement  our  author  was 
puzzled  to  harmonize  the  facts  with  the  prevailing  the- 
ory of  Aztec  institutions.  He  presents  to  us  an  Aztec 
lord  who  held  the  fee  of  the  land  as  a  feudal  proprietor, 
and  a  title  of  rank  pertaining  to  it,  both  of  which  he 
transmitted  to  his  son  and  heir.  But  in  obedience  to 
truth  he  states  the  essential  fact  that  the  lands  belonged 
to  a  body  of  consanguinei  of  whom  he  is  styled  the  major 

»  "History  of  Mexico."  W,  141. 

=  "History  of  Anoprica,"  ill,  .'{14.  The  above  is  a  retranslatlon  by 
Mr.  Bandelier  from  the  Spanish  text 


THE  AZTEC   CONFEDERACY  207 

parent,  i.  e.,  he  was  the  sachem,  it  may  be  supposed,  of 
the  gens,  the  latter  owning  these  lands  in  common.  The 
suggestion  that  he  held  the  lands  in  trust  means  nothing. 
They  found  Indian  chiefs  connected  with  gentes,  each 
gens  owning  a  body  of  lands  in  common,  and  when  the 
chief  died,  his  place  was  filled  by  his  son,  according  to 
Herrera.  In  so  far  it  may  have  been  analogous  to  a 
Spanish  estate  and  title ;  and  the  misconception  resulted 
from  a  want  of  knowledge  of  the  nature  and  tenure  of 
the  office  of  chief.  In  some  cases  they  found  the  son 
did  not  succeed  his  father,  but  the  office  went  to  some 
other  person ;  hence  the  further  statement,  "if  a  house 
(alguna  casa,  another  feudal  feature)  died  out,  they  [the 
lands]  were  left  to  the  nearest  major  parent;"  i.  e.,  an- 
other person  was  elected  sachem,  as  near  as  any  conclu- 
sion can  be  drawn  from  the  language.  What  little  has 
been  given  to  us  by  the  Spanish  writers  concerning  In- 
dian chiefs,  and  the  land  tenure  of  the  tribes  is  corrupted 
by  the  use  of  language  adapted  to  feudal  institutions  that 
had  no  existence  among  them.  In  this  lineage  we  are 
warranted  in  recognizing  an  Aztec  gens ;  and  in  this  lord 
an  Aztec  sachem,  whose  office  was  hereditary  in  the 
gens,  in  the  sense  elsewhere  stated,  and  elective  among 
its  members.  If  descent  was  in  the  male  line,  the  choice 
would  fall  upon  one  of  the  sons  of  the  deceased  sachem, 
own  or  collateral,  upon  a  grandson,  through  one  of  his 
sons,  or  upon  a  brother,  own  or  collateral.  But  if  in  the 
female  line  it  would  fall  upon  a  brother  or  nephew,  own 
or  collateral,  as  elsewhere  explained.  The  sachem  had 
no  title  whatever  to  the  lands,  and  therefore  none  to 
transmit  to  any  one.  He  was  thought  to  be  the  pro- 
prietor because  he  held  an  office  which  was  perpetually 
maintained,  and  because  there  was  a  body  of  lands  per- 
petually belonging  to  a  gens  over  which  he  was  a  sa- 
chem. The  misconception  of  this  office  and  of  its  tenure 
has  been  the  fruitful  source  of  unnumbered  errors  in  our 
aboriginal  histories.  The  lineage  of  Herrera,  and  the 
communities  of  Clavigero  were  evidently  organizations, 
and  the  same  organization.  They  found  in  this  body  of 
kindred,  without  knowing  the  fact,  the  unit  of  their  so- 
cial system,  a  gens,  as  we  must  suppose. 


208  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

Indian  chiefs  are  described  as  lords  by  Spanish  writ- 
ers, and  invested  with  rights  over  lands  and  over  per- 
sons they  never  possessed.  It  is  a  misconception  to  style 
an  Indian  chief  a  lord  in  the  European  sense,  because 
it  implies  a  condition  of  society  that  did  not  exist.  A 
lord  holds  a  rank  and  a  title  by  hereditary  right,  secured 
to  him  by  special  legislation  in  derogation  of  the  rights 
of  the  people  as  a  whole.  To  this  rank  and  title,  since 
the  overthrow  of  feudalism,  no  duties  are  attached  which 
may  be  claimed  by  the  king  or  the  kingdom  as  a  matter 
of  right.  On  the  contrary,  an  Indian  chief  holds  an  of- 
fice, not  by  hereditary  right,  but  by  election  from  a  con- 
stituency, which  retained  the  right  to  depose  him  for 
cause.  The  office  carried  with  it  the  obligation  to  per- 
form certain  duties  for  the  benefit  of  the  constituency. 
He  had  no"  authority  over  the  persons  or  property  or 
lands  of  the  members  of  the  gens.  It  is  thus  seen  that 
no  analogy  exists  between  a  lord  and  his  title,  and  an 
Indian  chief  and  his  office.  One  belongs  to  political  so- 
ciety, and  represents  an  aggression  of  the  few  upon  the 
many ;  wdiile  the  other  belongs  to  gentile  society  and  is 
founded  upon  the  common  interests  of  the  members  of 
the  gens.  Unequal  privileges  find  no  place  in  the  gens, 
phratry  or  tribe. 

Further  traces  of  the  existence  of  Aztec  gentes  will 
appear.  A  prima  facie  case  of  the  existence  of  gentes 
among  them  is  at  least  made  out.  There  was  also  an 
antecedent  probability  to  this  eflfect,  from  the  presence 
of  the  two  upper  members  of  the  organic  series,  the  tribe, 
and  the  confederacy,  and  from  the  general  prevalence  of 
the  organization  among  other  tribes.  A  very  little  close 
investigation  by  the  early  Spanish  writers  would  have 
placed  the  question  beyond  a  doubt,  and,  as  a  conse- 
quence, have  given  a  very  different  complexion  to  Aztec 
history. 

The  usages  regulating  the  inheritance  of  property 
among  the  Aztecs  have  come  down  to  us  in  a  confused 
and  contradictory  condition.  They  are  not  material  in 
this  discussion,  except  as  they  reveal  the  existence  of 
bodies  of  consangninei,  and  the  inheritance  by  children 
from  their  fathers.     If  the  latter  were  the  fact  it  would 


'''  THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY  209 

show  that  descent  was  in  the  male  hne,  and  also  an  ex- 
traordinary advance  in  a  knowledge  of  property.  It  is 
not  probable  that  children  enjoyed  an  exclusive  inherit- 
ance, or  that  any  Aztec  owned  a  foot  of  land  which  he 
could  call  his  own,  with  power  to  sell  and  convey  to 
whomsoever  he  pleased. 

II.  The  Existence  and  Funelions  of  the  Couneil  of 
Chiefs. 
The  existence  of  such  a  council  among  the  Aztecs 
might  have  been  predicted  from  the  necessary  constitu- 
tion of  Indian  society.  Theoretically,  it  would  have 
been  composed  of  that  class  of  chiefs,  distinguished  as 
sachems,  who  represented  bodies  of  kindred  through  an 
office  perpetually  maintained.  Here  again,  as  elsewhere, 
a  necessity  is  seen  for  gentes,  whose  principal  chiefs 
Avould  represent  the  people  in  their  ultimate  social  sub- 
divisions as  among  the  Northern  tribes.  Aztec  gentes 
are  fairly  necessary  to  explain  the  existence  of  Aztec 
chiefs.  Of  the  presence  of  an  Aztec  council  there  is  no 
doubt  whatever ;  but  of  tlie  number  of  its  members  and 
of  its  functions  we  are  left  in  almost  total  ignorance. 
Brasseur  de  Bourbourg  remarks  generally  that  "nearly 
all  the  towns  or  tribes  are  divided  into  four  clans  or 
quarters  whose  chiefs  constitute  the  great  council."  ^ 
Whether  he  intended  to  limit  the  number  to  one  chief 
from  each  quarter  is  not  clear ;  but  elsewhere  he  limits 
the  Aztec  council  to  four  chiefs.  Diego  Duran,  who 
wrote  his  work  in  1 579-1 581,  and  thus  preceded  both 
Acosta  and  Tezozomoc,  remarks  as  follows :  "First  we 
must  know,  that  in  Mexico  after  having  elected  a  king 
they  elected  four  lords  of  the  brothers  or  near  relations 
of  this  king  to  whom  they  gave  the  titles  of  princes,  and 
from  whom  they  had  to  choose  the  king.  [To  the  offices 
he  gives  the  names  of  Tlacachcalcatl,  Tlacatecal,  F.zuau- 

uacatl,  and  Fillancalque] These  four  lords  and 

titles  after  being  elected  princes,  thcv  made  them  the 
royal  coimcil.  like  the  presidents  and  judges  of  the  su- 
preme council,  without  whose  opinion  nothin<T  cotdd  be 

I  "Popol   Vuh,"   Intro,  p.   H7.  note   2, 


210  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

done."  *    Acosta,  after  naming  the  same  offices,  and  call- 
ing the  persons  who  held  them  "electors,"  remarks  that 
"all  these  four  dignities  were  of  the  great  council,  with- 
out whose  advice  the  king  might  not  do  anything  of  im- 
portance." ^    And  Herrera,  after  placing  these  offices  in 
four  grades,  proceeds:     "These  four  sorts  of  noblemen 
w^re  of  the  supreme  council,  without  whose  advice  the 
king  was  to  do  nothing  of  moment,  and  no  king  could 
be  chosen  but  what  was  of  one  of  these  four  orders."^ 
The  use  of  the  term  king  to  describe  a  principal  war- 
chief  and  of  princes  to  describe    Indian    chiefs  cannot 
create  a  state  or  a  political  society  where  none  existed ; 
but  as  misnomers  they  stilt  up  and  disfigure  our  aborig- 
inal history  and  for  that  reason  ought  to  be  discarded. 
WJien  the  Huexotzincos  sent  delegates  to  Mexico  pro- 
posing an  alliance   against  the   Tlascalans,   ^lontezuma 
addressed  them,  according  to  Tezozomoc,    as    follows : 
"Brothers  and   sons,  you  are  welcome,   rest  yourselves 
awhile,  for  although  T  am  king  indeed  I  alone  cannot 
satisfy  you,  but  only  together  with  all  the  chiefs  of  the 
sacred   Mexican   senate."*    The   above   accounts   recog- 
nize the  existence  of  a  supreme  council,  with  authority 
over  the  action  of  the  principal  war-chief,  which  is  the 
material  point.    It  tends  to  show  that  the  Aztecs  guarded 
themselves  against  an  irresponsible  despot,  by  subjecting 
his  action  to  a  council    of    chiefs,  and  by  making  him 
elective  and  deposable.      If    the  limited  and  incomplete 
statements  of  these  authors  intended  to  restrict  this  coun- 
cil to  four  members,  which  Duran  seems  to  imply,  the 
limitation  is  improbable.     As  such  the  council  would  re- 
present, not  the  Aztec  tribe,  but  the  small  body  of  kins- 
men  from  whom  the  military    commander    was    to  be 
chosen.     This  is  not  the  theory  of  a  council  of  chiefs. 
Each  chief  represents  a  constituency,  and  the  chiefs  to- 
gether represent  the  tribe.     A  selection  from  their  num- 

I  "Hl.story  of  the  Tndips  of  New  Spain  and  Islands  of  the 
Main  Land,"  Mexico,  1867.  Ed.  by  Jose  F.  Ramirez,  p.  102.  Pub- 
llsliod    from   the    oripinal   MS.     Translated   by   Mr.    Bandelier. 

a  "The  Natural  and  Moral  History  of  the  East  and  West 
Indies,"   Lond.    cd.,   K>04.     Grimstone's   Trans.,   p.    4S.S. 

3  "History    of    America,"    Hi,    224. 

i  "Cronlca  Mexicana,"  cap.  xcvll.    Bandelier's  Trans. 


THK  AZTEC  CONPEDERACT  911 

ber  is  sometimes  made  to  form  a  general  council ;  but  it 
is  through  an  organic  provision  v\hich  fixes  the  num- 
ber, and  provides  for  their  perpetual  maintenance.  The 
Tezcucan  council  is  said  to  have  consisted  of  fourteen 
members,  *  while  the  council  at  Tlascala  was  a  numerous 
body.  Such  a  council  among  the  Aztecs  is  required  by 
the  structure  and  principles  of  Indian  society,  and  there- 
fore would  be  expected  to  exist.  In  this  council  may 
be  recognized  the  lost  element  in  Aztec  history.  A 
knowledge  of  its  functions  is  essential  to  a  comprehen- 
sion of  Aztec  society. 

In  the  current  histories  this  council  is  treated  as  an 
advisory  board  of  ]\Tontezuma's,  as  a  council  of  minist- 
ers of  his  own  creation  ;  thus  Clavigero :  "In  the  history 
of  the  conquest  we  shall  find  Montezuma  in  frequent 
deliberation  with  his  council  on  the  pretensions  of  the 
Spaniards.  We  do  not  know  the  number  of  each  coun- 
cil, nor  do  historians  furnish  us  with  the  lights  neces- 
sary to  illustrate  such  a  subject."  ^  It  was  one  of  the 
first  questions  requiring  investigation,  and  the  fact  that 
the  early  writers  failed  to  ascertain  its  composition  and 
functions  is  proof  conclusive  of  the  superficial  character 
of  their  work.  We  know,  however,  that  the  council  of 
chiefs  is  an  institution  which  came  in  with  the  gentes, 
which  represents  electing  constituencies,  and  which  from 
time  immemorial  had  a  vocation  as  well  as  original  gov- 
erning powers.  We  find  a  Tezcucan  and  Tlacopan  coun- 
cil, a  Tlascalan.  a  Cholulan  and  a  Michoacan  council, 
each  composed  of  chiefs.  The  evidence  establishes  the 
existence  of  an  Aztec  council  of  chiefs ;  but  so  far  as  it 
is  limited  to  four  members,  all  of  the  same  lineage,  it  is 
presented  in  an  improbable  form.  Every  tribe  in  Mexico 
and  Central  America,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  had  its 
council  of  chiefs.  It  was  the  governing  body  of  the  tribe, 
and  a  constant  phenomenon  in  all  parts  of  aboriginal 
America.  The  council  of  chiefs  is  the  oldest  institution 
of  government  of  mankind.     It  can  show  an  unbroken 

I   Ixtlilxochitl,    "Hist.    Chichimeca,"    Kingsborough,    "Mex.   An- 
tlq.,"   Ix,   p.   243. 
s  "History  of  Mexico."   il,   133. 


212  ANCIENT  BOCIETT 

succession  on  the  several  continents  from  the  Upper 
Status  of  savagery  through  the  three  sub-periods  of  bar- 
barism to  the  commencement  of  civilization,  when,  hav- 
ing been  changed  into  a  preconsidering  council  with  the 
rise  of  the  assembly  of  the  people,  it  gave  birth  to  the 
modern  legislature  in  two  bodies. 

It  does  not  appear  that  there  was  a  general  council  of 
the  Aztec  confederacy,  composed  of  the  principal  chiefs 
of  the  three  tribes,  as  distinguished  from  the  separate 
councils  of  each.  A  complete  elucidation  of  this  subject 
is  required  before  it  can  be  known  whether  the  Aztec  or- 
ganization was  simply  a  league,  offensive  and  defensive, 
and  as  such  under  the  primary  control  of  the  Aztec  tribe, 
or  a  confederacy  in  which  the  parts  were  integrated  in 
a  symmetrical  whole.  This  problem  must  await  future 
solution. 

III.     The  Tenure  and  Functions  of  the  Office  of  Frinc- 
ipal  War-chief. 

The  name  of  the  office  held  b}-  Montezuma,  according 
to  the  best  accessible  information,  was  simply  Teuctli, 
which  signifies  a  zvar-chief.  As  a  member  of  the  coun- 
cil of  chiefs  he  was  sometimes  called  Tlatoani,  which 
signifies  speaker.  This  office  of  a  general  military  com- 
mander was  the  highest  known  to  the  Aztecs.  It  was  the 
same  office  and  held  by  the  same  tenure  as  that  of  princi- 
pal war-chief  in  the  Iroquois  confederacy.  It  made  the 
person,  ex  officio,  a  member  of  the  council  of  chiefs,  as 
may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  in  some  of  the  tribes 
the  principal  war-chief  had  precedence  in  the  council 
both  in  debate  and  in  pronouncing  his  opinion.'  None 
of  the  Spanish  writers  apply  this  title  to  Montezuma  or 
his  successors.  It  was  superseded  by  the  inappropriate 
title  of  king.  Ixtlilxochitl,  who  was  of  mixed  Tczcucan 
and  Spanish  descent,  describes  the    head  war-chiefs  of 

I  "The  title  of  'TeuotU'  wa.s  added  in  tlie  manner  of  a  sur- 
name to  the  proper  name  of  tlie  porson  advanced  to  this  dig- 
nity, a.s  'Chichlmeca-Teuctli,'  'Pll-Teuctll,'  and  others.  The 
"Teuctli'  took  precedency  of  all  others  in  the  senate,  both  In 
5he  order  of  sitting  and  voting,  and  were  permitted  to  have  a 
servant  behind  them  with  a  .<5Pat.  which  was  esteemed  a  privi- 
lege of  the  highest  honor."— f'lnvigero,  ii,  1.T7.  This  is  a  re-ap- 
pearance  of  the  sub-sachem  of  the  Iroquois  behind  his  princIpaL 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY  218 

Mexico,  Tezcuco  and  Tlacopan,  by  the  simple  title  of 
war-chief,  with  another  to  indicate  the  tribe.  After 
speaking  of  the  division  of  powers  between  the  three 
chiefs  when  the  confederacy  was  formed,  and  of  the  as- 
sembling of  the  chiefs  of  the  three  tribes  on  that  occa- 
sion, he  proceeds :  'The  king  of  Tezcuco  was  saluted  by 
the  title  of  Aculhua  Tcuctli,  also  by  that  of  Chichimecatl 
TeiictH  wdiich  his  ancestors  had  worn,  and  which  was 
the  mark  of  the  empire;  Itacoatdn,  his  uncle,  received 
the  title  of  Cnlhiia  Tenctli,  because  he  reigned  over  the 
Toltecs-Culhuas ;  and  Totoquilutatcin  that  of  Tecpanuatl 
Teuctli,  which  had  been  the  title  of  Azcaputzako.  _  Since 
that  time  their  successors  have  received  the  same  title."  ^ 
Itzcoatdn  {Itccoatl),  here  mentioned,  was  war-chief  of 
the  Aztecs  when  the  confederacy  was  formed.  As  the 
title  was  that  of  war-chief,  then  held  by  many  other  per- 
sons, the  compliment  consisted  in  connecting  with  it  a 
tribal  designation.  In  Indian  speech  the  office  held  by 
Montezuma  w^as  equivalent  to  head  war-chief,  and  in 
English  to  general. 

Clavigero  recognizes  this  office  in  several  Nahuatlac 
tribes,  but  never  applies  it  to  the  Aztec  war-chief.  "The 
highest  rank  of  nobility  in  Tlascala,  in  Huexotzinco  and 
in  Cholula  was  that  of  Teuctli.  To  obtain  this  rank  it 
was  necessary  to  be  of  noble  birth,  to  have  given  proofs 
in  several  battles  of  the  utmost  courage,  to  have  arrived 
at  a  certain  age,  and  to  command  great  riches  for  the 
enormous  expenses  w^hich  were  necessary  to  be  sup- 
ported bv  the  possessor  of  such  a  dignity."  ^  After 
Montezuma  had  been  magnified  into  an  absolute  potent- 
ate, with  civil  as  well  as  military  functions,  the  nature 
and  powers  of  the  office  he  held  were  left  in  the  back- 
ground —  in  fact  uninvestigated.  As  their  general  mili- 
tarv  commander  he  possessed  the  means  of  winning  the 
popular  favor,  and  of  commanding  the  popular  respect. 
It  was  a  dangerous  but  necessary  office  to  the  tribe  and 
to  the  confederacy.  Throughout  human  experience,  from 
the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism  to  the  present  time,  it  has 

1  "Historia   Chlchimeca,"   ch.   xxxll,   Kingsborough:    "Mex.   A»- 
tlq.,"   ix,    219. 

2  "History   of    Mexico,"    1.   c,    ii,    136. 


214  ANCIENT  SOCIETf 

ever  been  a  dangerous  office.  Constitutions  and  laws 
furnish  the  present  security  of  civilized  nations,  so  far 
as  they  have  any.  A  body  of  usages  and  customs  grew 
up,  in  all  probability,  among  the  advanced  Indian  tribes 
and  among  the  tribes  of  the  valley  of  Mexico,  regulating 
the  powers  and  prescribing  the  duties  of  this  office. 
There  are  general  reasons  warranting  the  supposition 
that  the  Aztec  council  of  chiefs  was  supreme,  not  only 
in  civil  affairs,  but  over  military  affairs,  the  person  and 
direction  of  the  war-chief  included.  The  Aztec  polity 
under  increased  numbers  and  material  advancement,  had 
undoubtedly  grown  complex,  and  for  that  reason  a 
knowledge  of  it  would  have  been  the  more  instructive. 
Could  the  exact  particulars  of  their  governmental  or- 
ganization be  ascertained  they  would  be  sufficiently  re- 
markable without  embellishment. 

The  Spanish  writers  concur  generally  in  the  statement 
that  the  office  held  by  Montezuma  was  elective,  with  the 
choice  confined  to  a  particular  family.  The  office  was 
found  to  pass  from  brother  to  brother,  or  from  uncle  to 
nephew.  They  were  unable,  however,  to  explain  whv  it 
did  not  in  some  cases  pass  from  father  to  son.  Since  the 
mode  of  succession  was  unusual  to  the  Spaniards  there 
was  less  possibility  of  a  mistake  with  regard  to  the  prin- 
cipal fact.  Moreover,  two  successions  occurred  under 
the  immediate  notice  of  the  conquerors.  Montezuma  was 
succeeded  by  Cuitlahua.  Tn  this  case  the  office  passed 
from  brother  to  brother,  although  we  cannot  know 
whether  they  were  own  or  collateral  brothers  without  a 
knowledge  of  their  system  of  consanguinity.  Upon  the 
death  of  the  latter  Guatemozin  was  elected  to  succeed 
him.  Here  the  office  passed  from  uncle  to  nephew,  but 
we  do  not  know  whether  he  was  an  own  or  a  collateral 
nephew.  (See  Part  Third,  ch.  iii.)  In  previous  cases 
the  office  had  passed  from  brother  to  brother  and  also 
from  uncle  to  nephew.  *  An  elective  office  implies  a  con- 
stituency ;  but  who  were  the  constituents  in  this  case  ? 
To  meet  this  question  the  four  chiefs  mentioned  by  Du- 
ran    (supra)   are  introduced  as  electors,    to  whom    one 

I   Clavlgero,    II,    12B. 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY  21(1 

elector  from  Tezcuco  and  one  from  Tlacopan  are  added, 
making,  six,  who  are  then  invested  with  power  to  choose 
from  a  particular  family  the  principal  war-chief.  This 
is  not  the  theory  of  an  elective  Indian  office,  and  it  may 
be  dismissed  as  improbable.  Sahagun  indicates  a  much 
larger  constituency.  "When  the  king  or  lord  died,"  he 
remarks,  "all  the  senators  called  Tecutlatoques,  and  the 
old  men  of  the  tribe  called  Achcacauhti,  and  also  the  cap- 
tains and  old  warriors  called  Yautequioaques,  and  other 
prominent  captains  in  warlike  matters,  and  also  the 
priests  called  Tlenamacaques,  or  Papasaques  —  all  these 
assembled  in  the  royal  houses.  Then  they  deliberated 
upon  and  determined  who  had  to  be  lord,  and  chose  one 
of  the  most  noble  of  the  lineage  of  the  past  lords,  who 
should  be  a  valiant  man,  experienced  in  warlike  matters, 
daring  and  brave. . .  .  When  they  agreed  upon  one  they 
at  once  named  him  as  lord,  but  this  election  was  not  made 
by  ballot  or  votes,  but  all  together  conferring  at  last 
agreed  upon  the  man.  The  lord  once  elected  they  also 
elected  four  others  which  were  like  senators,  and  had  to 
be  always  with  the  lord,  and  be  informed'  of  all  the  busi- 
ness of  the  kingdom."  ^  This  scheme  of  election  by  a 
large  assembly,  while  it  shows  the  popular  element  in 
the  government  which  undoubtedly  existed,  is  without 
the  method  of  Indian  institutions.  Before  the  tenure  of 
this  office  and  the  mode  of  election  can  be  made  intellig- 
ible, it  is  necessary  to  find  whether  or  not  they  were  or- 
ganized in  gentes,  whether  descent  was  in  the  female  line 
or  the  male,  and  to  know  something  of  their  system  of 
consanguinity.  If  they  had  the  system  found  in  many 
other  tribes  of  the  Ganowanian  family,  which  is  probable, 
a  man  would  call  his  brother's  son  his  son,  and  his  sis- 
ter's son  his  nephew ;  he  would  call  his  father's  brother 
his  father,  and  his  mother's  brother  his  uncle ;  the  chil- 
dren of  his  father's  brother  his  brothers  and  sisters,  and 
the  children  of  his  mother's  brother  his  cousins,  and  so 
on.  If  organized  into  gentes  with  descent  in  the  female 
line,  a  man  would  have  brothers,  uncles  and  nephews, 
collateral  grandfathers   and    grandsons  within   his    own 

1   "Hlstorla  General,"  ch.  xvili. 


gl$  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

gens;  but  neither  own  father,  own  son,  nor  Hneal  grand- 
son. His  own  sons  and  his  brother's  sons  would  belong 
to  other  gentes.  It  cannot  as  yet  be  affirmed  that  the 
Aztecs  were  organized  in  gentes ;  but  the  succession  to 
the  office  of  principal  war-chief  is  of  itself  strong  proof 
of  the  fact,  because  it  would  explain  this  succession  com- 
pletely. Then  with  descent  in  the  female  line  the  office 
would  be  hereditary  in  a  particular  gens,  but  elective 
among  its  members.  In  that  case  the  office  would  .pass, 
by  election  within  the  gens,  from  brother  to  brother,  or 
from  imcle  to  nephew,  precisely  as  it  did  among  the 
Aztecs,  and  never  from  father  to  son.  Among  the  Iro- 
quois at  that  same  time  the  offices  of  sachem  and  of  prin- 
cipal war-chief  were  passing  from  brother  to  brother  or 
from  uncle  to  nephew,  as  the  choice  might  happen  to  fall, 
and  never  to  the  son.  It  was  the  gens,  with  descent  in 
the  female  line,  which  gave  this  mode  of  succession,  and 
which  could  have  been  secured  in  no  other  conceivable 
way.  It  is  difficult  to  resist  the  conclusions,  from  these 
facts  alone,  that  the  Aztecs  were  organized  in  gentes, 
and  that  in  respect  to  this  office  at  least,  descent  was  still 
in  the  female  line. 

It  may  therefore  be  suggested,  as  a  probable  explana- 
tion, that  the  office  held  by  Montezuma  was  hereditary  in 
a  gens  (the  eagle  was  the  blazon  or  totem  on  the  house 
■occupied  by  Montezuma),  by  the  members  of  which  the 
choice  was  made  from  among  their  number ;  that  their 
nomination  was  then  submitted  separately  to  the  four 
lineages  or  divisions  of  the  Aztecs  (conjectured  to  be 
phratries),  for  acceptance  or  rejection;  and  also  to  the 
Tezcucans  and  Tlacopans.  who  were  directly  interested 
in  the  selection  of  the  general  commander.  When  they 
had  severally  considered  and  confirmed  the  nomination 
each  division  appointed  a  person  to  signify  their  concur- 
rence; "whence  the  six  miscalled  electors.  It  is  not  un- 
likely that  the  four  high  chiefs  of  the  Aztecs,  mentioned 
as  electors  by  a  number  of  authors,  were  in  fact  the  war- 
chiefs  of  the  four  divisions  of  the  Aztecs,  like  the  four 
war-chiefs  of  the  four  lineages  of  the  Tlascalans.  The 
function  of  these  persons  was  not  to  elect,  but  to  ascer- 
tain by  a  conference  with  each  other  whether  the  choice 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDEPwACY  217 

made  by  the  gens  had  been  concurred  in,  and  if  so  to 
announce  the  result.  The  foregoing  is  submitted  as  a 
conjectural  explanation,  upon  the  fragments  of  evidence 
remaining,  of  the  mode  of  succession  to  the  Aztec  office 
of  principal  war-chief.  It  is  seen  to  harmonize  with  In- 
dian usages,  and  with  the  theory  of  the  office  of  an  elec- 
tive Indian  chief. 

The  right  to  depose  from  office  follows  as  a  necessary 
consequence  of  the  right  to  elect,  where  the  term  was 
for  life.  It  is  thus  turned  into  an  office  during  good  be- 
havior. In  these  two  principles  of  electing  and  deposing, 
universally  established  in  the  social  system  of  the  Ameri- 
can aborigines,  sufficient  evidence  is  furnished  that  the 
sovereign  power  remained  practically  in  the  hands  of  the 
people.  This  power  to  depose,  though  seldom  exercised, 
was  vital  in  the  gentile  organization.  Montezuma  was 
no  exception  to  the  rule.  It  required  time  to  reach  this 
result  from  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case,  for  a 
good  reason  was  necessary.  When  Montezuma  allowed 
himself,  through  intimidation,  to  be  conducted  from  his 
place  of  residence  to  the  quarters  of  Cortes  wdiere  he  was 
placed  under  confinement,  the  Aztecs  were  paralyzed  for 
a  time  for  the  want  of  a  military  commander.  The  Span- 
iards had  possession  both  of  the  man  and  of  his  office.  ^ 
They  waited  some  weeks,  hoping  the  Spaniards  would 
retire;  but  when  they  found  the  latter  intended  to  re- 
main they  met  the  necessity,  as  there  are  sufficient  rea- 
sons for  believing,  by  deposing  Montezuma  for  want  of 
resolution,  and  elected  his  brother  to  fill  his  place.  Im- 
mediately thereafter  they  assaulted  the  Spanish  quarters 

I  In  the  "V\'est  India  Islands  the  Spaniards  discovered  that 
when  they  captured  the  cacique  of  a  tribe  and  held  him  a  pris- 
oner, the  Indians  became  demoralized  and  refused  to  flght. 
Taking-  advantage  of  this  knowledge  when  they  reached  the 
main-land  they  made  it  a  point  to  entrap  the  principal  chief, 
by  force  or  fraud,  and  hold  him  a  prisoner  until  their  object 
was  g-ained.  '  Cortes  simply  acted  upon  this  experience  when  he 
captured  Montezuma  and  held  liim  a  prisoner  in  his  quarters; 
and  Pizaarro  did  the  same  when  he  seized  Atahuallpa.  Under 
Indian  customs  tlie  prisoner  was  put  to  death,  and  if  a  princi- 
pal chief,  the  othce  reverted  to  the  tribe  and  was  at  once  filled. 
But  In  these  cases  the  prisoner  remained  alive,  and  in  posses- 
sion of  his  office,  so  that  it  could  not  be  filled.  Tlie  action  of 
the  people  was  paralyzed  by  novel  circumstances.  Cortes  put 
the  Aztecs  in  this  position. 


2lS  ancieMt  society 

with  great  fury,  and  finally  succeeded  in  driving  them 
from  their  pueblo.  This  conclusion  respecting  the  depo- 
sition of  Montezuma  is  fully  warranted  by  Herrera's 
statement  of  the  facts.  After  the  assault  conmmenced, 
Cortes,  observing  the  Aztecs  obeying  a  new  commander, 
at  once  suspected  the  truth  of  the  matter,  and  "sent 
Marina  to  ask  Montezuma  whether  he  thought  they  had 
put  the  government  into  his  hands,"  ^  i.  e.,  the  hands  of 
the  new  commander.  Montezuma  is  said  to  have  replied 
"that  they  would  not  presume  to  choose  a  king  in  Mexico 
whilst  he  was  living."  ^  He  then  went  upon  the  roof  of 
the  house  and  addressed  his  countrymen,  saying  among 
other  things,  "that  he  had  been  informed  they  had  chosen 
another  king  because  he  was  confined  and  loved  the 
Spaniards ;"  to  which  he  received  the  following  ungra- 
cious reply  from  an  Aztec  warrior :  "Hold  your  peace, 
you  efifeminate  scoundrel,  born  to  weave  and  spin ;  these 
dogs  keep  you  a  prisoner,  you  are  a  coward."  ^  Then 
they  discharged  arrows  upon  him  and  stoned  him,  from 
the  effects  of  which  and  from  deep  humiliation  he  shortly 
afterwards  died.  The  war-chief  in  the  command  of  the 
Aztecs  in  this  assault  was  Cuitlahua,  the  brother  of  Mon- 
tezuma and  his  successor,  * 

Respecting  the  functions  of  this  office  very  little  satis- 
factory information  can  be  derived  from  the  Spanish 
writers.  There  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  Monte- 
zuma possessed  any  power  over  the  civil  afifairs  of  the  Az- 
tecs. Moreover,  every  presumption  is  against  it.  In 
military  affairs  when  in  the  field  he  had  the  powers  of 
a  general ;  but  military  movements  were  probably  decided 
upon  by  the  council.  It  is  an  interesting  fact  to  be  no- 
ticed that  the  functions  of  a  priest  were  attached  to  the 
office  of  principal  war-chief,  and,  as  it  is  claimed,  those 
of  a  judge.  ^  The  early  appearance  of  these  functions  in 
the  natural  growth  of  the  military  office  will  be  referred 
to  again  in  connection  with  that  of  basileus.  Although 
the  government  was  of  two  powers  it  is  probable  that 

1  :'HIstory  of  Mexico,"  111,   66. 

3  lb.,   lii,    67. 

3  Clavlgero,  11,   406. 

4  lb.,   11.   404. 

% ra,    ill,    393. 


THE  AZTEC  CONFEDERACY  219 

the  council  was  supreme,  in  case  of  a  conflict  of  author- 
ity, over  civil  and  military  affairs.  It  should  be  remem- 
bered that  the  council  of  chiefs  was  the  oldest  in  time, 
and  possessed  a  solid  basis  of  power  in  the  needs  of  so- 
ciety and  in  the  representative  character  of  the  office  of 
chief. 

The  tenure  of  the  office  of  principal,  war-chief  and  the 
presence  of  a  council  with  power  to  depose  from  office, 
tend  to  show  that  the  institutions  of  the  Aztecs  were  es- 
sentially democratical.  The  elective  principle  with  respect 
to  war-chief,  and  which  we  must  suppose  existed  with  re- 
spect to  sachem  and  chief,  and  the  presence  of  a  council 
of  chiefs,  determine  the  material  fact.  A  pure  democ- 
racy of  the  Athenian  type  was  unknown  in  the  Lower, 
in  the  Middle,  or  even  in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism ; 
but  it  is  very  important  to  know  whether  the  institutions 
of  a  people  are  essentially  democratical,  or  essentially 
monarchical,  when  we  seek  to  understand  them.  Insti- 
tutions of  the  former  kind  are  separated  nearly  as  widely 
from  those  of  the  latter,  as  democracy  is  from  monarchy. 
Without  ascertaining  the  unit  of  their  social  system,  if 
organized  in  gentes  as  they  probably  were,  and  without 
gaining  a  knowledge  of  the  system  that  did  exist,  the 
Spanish  writers  boldly  invented  for  the  Aztecs  an  abso- 
lute monarchy  with  high  feudal  characteristics,  and  have 
succeeded  in  placing  it  in  history.  This  misconception 
has  stood,  through  American  indolence,  quite  as  long  as 
it  deserves  to  stand.  The  Aztec  organization  presented 
itself  plainly  to  the  Spaniards  as  a  league  or  confederacy 
of  tribes.  Nothing  but  the  grossest  perversion  of  obvious 
facts  could  have  enabled  the  Spanish  writers  to  fabricate 
the   Aztec   monarchy  out  of  a  democratic  organization. 

Theoretically,  the  Aztecs,  Tezcucans  and  Tlacopans 
should  severally  have  had  a  head-sachem  to  represent 
the  tribe  in  civil  affairs  when  the  council  of  chiefs  was 
not  in  session,  and  to  take  the  initiative  in  preparing  its 
work.  There  are  traces  of  such  an  officer  among  the 
Aztecs  in  the  7JahuacatI,  who  is  sometimes  called  the 
second  chief,  as  the  war-chief  is  called  the  first.  But 
the  accessible  information  respecting  this  office  is  too  lim- 
ited to  warrant  a  discussion  of  the  subject. 


220  ANCIENt!  SOCIiETir 

It  has  been  shown  among  the  Iroquois  that  the  war- 
riors could  appear  before  the  council  of  chiefs  and  ex- 
press their  views  upon  pubHc  questions ;  and  that  the 
women  could  do  the  same  through  orators  of  their  own 
selection.  This  popular  participation  in  the  government 
led  in  time  to  the  popular  assembly,  with  power  to  adopt 
or  reject  public  measures  submitted  to  them  by  the  coun- 
cil. Among  the  A'illage  Indians  there  is  no  evidence,  so 
far  as  the  author  is  aware,  that  there  was  an  assembly  of 
the  people  to  consider  public  questions  with  power  to 
act  upon  them.  The  four  lineages  probably  met  for  spe- 
cial objects,  but  this  was  very  different  from  a  general 
assembly  for  public  objects.  From  the  democratic  char- 
acter of  their  institutions  and  their  advanced  condition 
the  Aztecs  were  drawing  near  the  time  when  the  assembly 
of  the  people  might  be  expected  to  appear. 

The  growth  of  the  idea  of  government  among  the 
American  aborigines,  as  elsewhere  remarked,  commenced 
with  the  gens  and  ended  with  the  confederacy.  Their 
organizations  were  social  and  not  political.  Until  the 
idea  of  property  had  advanced  very  far  beyond  the  point 
they  had  attained,  the  substitution  of  political  for  gentile 
society  was  impossible.  There  is  not  a  fact  to  show  that 
any  portion  of  the  aborigines,  at  least  in  North  America, 
had  reached  any  conception  of  the  second  great  plan  of 
government  founded  upon  territory  and  upon  property. 
The  spirit  of  the  government  and  the  condition  of  the 
people  harmonize  with  the  institutions  under  which  they 
live.  When  the  military  spirit  predominates,  a^s  it  did 
among  the  Aztecs,  a  military  democracy  rises  naturally 
under  gentile  institutions.  Such  a  government  neither 
supplants  the  free  spirit  of  the  gentes,  nor  weakens  the 
principles  of  democracy,  but  accords  with  them  har- 
moniously. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE    GRECIAN    GENS 

Civilization  may  be  said  to  have  commenced  among 
the  Asiatic  Greeks  with  the  composition  of  the  Homeric 
poems  about  850  B.  C. ;  and  among  the  European  Greeks 
about  a  century  later  with  the  composition  of  the  Hesi- 
odic  poems.  Anterior  to  these  epochs,  there  was  a 
period  of  several  thousand  years  during  which  the  Hel- 
lenic tribes  were  advancing  through  the  Later  Period  of 
barbarism,  and  preparing  for"  their  entrance  upon  a  civil- 
ized career.  Their  most  ancient  traditions  find  them  al- 
ready established  in  the  Grecian  peninsula,  upon  the  east- 
ern border  of  the  Mediterranean,  and  upon  the  inter- 
mediate and  adjacent  islands.  An  older  branch  of  the 
same  stock,  of  which  the  Pelasgians  were  the  chief  rep- 
resentatives, had  preceded  them  in  the  occupation  of  the 
greater  part  of  these  areas,  and  were  in  time  either  Hel- 
lenized  by  them,  or  forced  into  emigration.  The  anterior 
condition  of  the  Hellenic  tribes  and  of  their  predecessors, 
must  be  deduced  from  the  arts  and  inventions  which  they 
brought  down  from  the  previous  period,  from  the  state 
of  development  of  their  language,  from  their  traditions 
and  from  their  social  institutions,  which  severally  sur- 
vived into  the  period  of  civilization.  Our  discussion  will 
be  restricted,  in  the  main,  to  the  last  class  of  facts. 

Pelasgians  and  Hellenes  alike  were  organized  in  gcn- 
tes,  phratries  ^  and  tribes ;  and  the  latter  united  by  coa- 
lescence into  nations.     In  some  cases  the  organic  series 


I   The   phratries    were    not     common    to     the     Dorian     tribes. — 
Mailer's  "Dorians,"  Tufnel  and  Law's  Trans.,  Oxford  ed.,   ii.   82. 


922  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

was  not  complete.  Whether  in  tribes  or  nations  their 
government  rested  upon  the  gens  as  the  unit  of  organi- 
zation, and  resulted  in  a  gentile  society  or  a  people,  as 
distinguished  from  a  political  society  or  a  state.  The  in- 
strument of  government  was  a  council  of  chiefs,  with  the 
co-operation  of  an  agora  or  assembly  of  the  people,  and 
of  a  basileus  or  military  commander.  The  people  were 
free,  and  their  institutions  democratical.  Under  the  in- 
fluence of  advancing  ideas  and  wants  the  gens  had  passed 
out  of  its  archaic  into  its  ultimate  form.  Modifications 
had  been  forced  upon  it  by  the  irresistible  demands  of  an 
improving  society ;  but,  notwithstanding  the  concessions 
made,  the  failure  of  the  gentes  to  meet  these  wants  was 
constantly  becoming  more  apparent.  The  changes  were 
limited,  in  the  main,  to  three  particulars :  firstly,  descent 
was  changed  to  the  male  line ;  secondly,  intermarriage 
in  the  gens  was  permitted  in  the  case  of  female  orphans 
and  heiresses :  and  thirdly,  children  had  gained  an  ex- 
clusive inheritance  of  their  father's  property.  An  at- 
tempt will  elsewhere  be  made  to  trace  these  changes, 
briefly,  and  the  causes  by  which  they  were  produced. 

The  Hellenes  in  general  were  in  fragmentary  tribes, 
presenting  the  same  characteristics  in  their  form  of  gov- 
ernment as  the  barbarous  tribes  in  general,  when  organ- 
ized in  gentes  and  in  the  same  stage  of  advancement. 
Their  condition  was  precisely  such  as  might  have  been 
predicted  would  exist  under  gentile  institutions,  and 
therefore  presents  nothing  remarkable. 

When  Grecian  society  came  for  the  first  time  under 
historical  observation,  about  the  first  Olympiad  {y/d  B. 
C.)  and  down  to  the  legislation  of  Cleisthenes  (509  B. 
C).  it  was  engaged  upon  the  solution  of  a  great  prob- 
lem. It  was  no  less  than  a  fundamental  change  in  the 
plan  of  government,  involving  a  great  modification  of  in- 
stitutions. The  people  were  seeking  to  transfer  them- 
selves out  of  gentile  society,  in  which  thev  had  lived 
from  time  immemorial,  into  political  society  based  upon 
territory  and  upon  property,  which  had  become  essential 
to  a  career  of  civilization.  In  fine,  they  were  striving 
to  establish  a  state,  the  first  in  the  experience  of  the 
Aryan  family,  and  to  place  it  upon  a  territorial  founda- 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS  223 

tion,  such  as  the  state  has  occupied  from  that  time  to 
the  present.  Ancient  society  rested  upon  an  organiza- 
tion of  persons,  and  was  governed  through  the  relations 
of  persons  to  a  gens  and  tribe ;  but  the  Grecian  tribes 
■were  outgrowing  this  old  plan  of  government,  and  began 
to  feel  the  necessity  of  a  political  system.  To  accomplish 
this  result  it  was  only  necessary  to  invent  a  deme  or 
township,  circumscribed  with  boundaries,  to  christen  it 
with  a  name,  and  organize  the  people  therein  as  a  body 
politic.  The  township,  with  the  fixed  property  it  con- 
tained, and  with  the  people  who  inhabited  it  for  the  time 
being,  was  to  become  the  unit  of  organization  in  the  new 
plan  of  government.  Thereafter  the  gentilis,  changed 
into  a  citizen,  would  be  dealt  with  by  the  state  through 
his  territorial  relations,  and  not  through  his  personal  re- 
lations to  a  gens.  He  would  be  enrolled  in  the  deme  of 
his  residence,  which  enrollment  was  the  evidence  of  his 
citizenship ;  would  vote  and  be  taxed  in  his  deme ;  and 
from  it  be  called  into  the  military  service.  Although  ap- 
parently a  simple  idea,  it  required  centuries  of  time  and 
a  complete  revolution  of  pre-existing  conceptions  of  gov- 
ernment to  accomplish  the  result.  The  gens,  which  had 
so  long  been  the  unit  of  a  social  system,  had  proved  in- 
adequate, as  before  suggested,  to  meet  the  requirements 
of  an  advancing  society.  But  to  set  this  organization 
aside,  together  with  the  phratry  and  tribe,  and  substitute 
a  number  of  fixed  areas,  each  with  its  communitv  of  citi- 
zens, was,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  a  measure  of  extreme 
difficulty.  The  relations  of  the  individual  to  his  gens, 
which  were  personal,  had  to  be  transferred  to  the  town- 
ship and  become  territorial ;  the  demarch  of  the  township 
taking,  in  some  sense,  the  place  of  the  chief  of  the  gens. 
A  township  with  its  fixed  property  would  be  permanent, 
and  the  people  therein  sufficiently  so ;  while  the  gens  was 
a  fluctuating  aggregate  of  persons,  more  or  less  scat- 
tered, and  now  growing  incapable  of  permanent  estab- 
lishment in  a  local  circumscription.  Anterior  to  experi- 
ence, a  township,  as  the  unit  of  a  political  system,  was 
abstruse  enough  to  tax  the  Greeks  and  Romans  to  the 
depths  of  their  capacities  before  the  conception  was 
formed  and  set  in  practical  operation.     Property  was  the 


224  ANCIENT  SOCIETT 

new  element  that  had  been  gradu-illy  remoulding  Grecian 
institutions  to  prepare  the  way  for  political  society,  of 
which  it  was  to  be  the  mainspring  as  well  a^  the  founda- 
tion. It  was  no  easy  task  to  accomplish  such  a  funda- 
mental change,  however  simple  and  obvious  it  may  now 
seem ;  because  all  the  previous  experience  of  the  Grecian 
tribes  had  been  identified  with  the  gentes  whose  powers 
were  to  be  surrendered  to  the  new  political  bodies. 

Several  centuries  elapsed,  after  the  first  attempts  were 
made  to  found  the  new  political  system,  before  the  prob- 
lem was  solved.  After  experience  had  demonstrated  that 
the  gentes  were  incapable  of  forming  the  basis  of  a  state, 
several  distinct  schemes  of  legislation  were  tried  in  the 
various  Grecian  communities,  who  copied  more  or  less 
each  other's  experiments,  all  tending  to  the  same  result. 
Among  the  Athenians  from  whose  experience  the  chief 
illustrations  will  be  drawn,  may  be  mentioned  the  legisla- 
tion of  Theseus,  on  the  authority  of  tradition ;  that  of 
Draco  (624  B.  C.)  :  that  of  Solon  (594  B.  C.)  ;  and  that 
of  Cleisthenes  (509  B.  C.),  the  last  three  of  which  were 
within  the  historical  period.  The  development  of  munic- 
ipal life  and  institutions,  the  aggregation  of  wealth  in 
walled  cities,  and  the  great  changes  in  the  mode  of  life 
thereby  produced,  prepared  the  way  for  the  overthrow 
of  gentile  society,  and  for  the  establishment  of  political 
society  in  its  place. 

Before  attempting  to  trace  the  transition  from  gentile 
into  political  society,  with  which  the  closing  history  of 
the  gentes  is  identified,  the  Grecian  gens  and  its  attri- 
butes will  be  first  considered. 

Athenian  institutions  are  t}-pical  of  Grecian  institu- 
tions in  general,  in  whatever  relates  to  the  constitution 
of  the  gens  and  tribe,  down  to  the  end  of  ancient  society 
among  them.  At  the  commencement  of  the  historical 
period,  the  lonians  of  Attica  were  subdivided,  as  is  well 
known,  into  four  tribes  (Geleontes,  Hopletes,  Aegicores, 
and  Argades),  speaking  the  same  dialect,  and  occupying 
a  common  territory.  They  had  coalesced  into  a  nation 
as  distinguished  from  a  confederacy  of  tribes ;  but  such  a 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS  225 

confederacy  had  probably  existed  in  anterior  times.  ^ 
Each  Attic  tribe  was  composed  of  three  phratries,  and 
each  phratry  of  thirty  gentes,  making  an  aggregate  of 
twelve  phratries,  and  of  three  hundred  and  sixty  gentes 
in  the  four  tribes.  Such  is  the  general  form  of  the  state- 
ment, the  fact  being  constant  with  respect  to  the  number 
of  tribes,  and  the  number  of  phratries  in  each,  but  liable 
to  variation  in  the  number  of  gentes  in  each  phratry.  In 
like  manner  the  Dorians  were  generally  found  in  three 
tribes  (Hylleis,  Pamphyli,  and  Dymanes),  although 
forming  a  number  of  nationalities ;  as  at  Sparta,  Argos, 
Sicyon,  Corinth,  Epidaurus  and  Troezen ;  and  beyond 
the  Peloponnesus  at  iMegara,  and  elsewhere.  One  or 
more  non-Dorian  tribes  were  found  in  some  cases  united 
with  them,  as  at  Corinth,,  Sicyon  and  Argos. 

In  all  cases  the  Grecian  tribe  presupposes  the  gen.tes, 
the  bond  of  kin  and  of  dialect  forming  the  basis  upon 
which  they  united  in  a  tribe ;  but  the  tribe  did  not  pre- 
suppose the  phratry,  which,  as  an  intermediate  organiza- 
tion, although  very  common  among  all  these  tribes,  was 
liable  to  be  intermitted.  At  Sparta,  there  were  subdivi- 
sions of  the  tribes  called  obes,  each  tribe  contain- 
ing ten,  which  were  analogous  to  phratries ;  but  concern- 
ing the  functions  of  these  organizations  some  uncertainty 
prevails.  ^ 

The  Athenian  gentes  will  now  be  considered  as  they 
appeared  in  their  ultimate  form  and  in  full  vitality ;  but 
with  the  elements  of  an  incipient  civilization  arrayed 
against  them,  before  which  they  were  yielding  step  by 
step,  and  by  which  they  were  to  be  overthrown  wdth  the 
social  system  they  created.     In  some  respects  it  is  the 


I  Hermann  mentions  the  confederacies  of  yEgina,  Athens, 
Prasia,  Naiiplia.  etc. — "Political  Antiquities  of  Greece,"  Oxford 
Trans.,  ch.  i,  s.  11. 

3  "In  the  anciont  "Rhetra"  of  Lycurgus,  the  tribes  and  obPs 
are  directed  to  he  maintained  unaltered:  hut  the  statement  of 
O.  Muller  and  Boeckh— that  there  were  thirty  ohfs  in  all,  ten 
to  each  tribe, — rests  upon  no  higher  evidence  than  a  peculiar 
punctuation  in  tliis  "Rlietra,"  wliich  various  otlier  critics  reject; 
and  seemingrly  witli  good  reason,  We  are  thus  left  without  any 
information  fespe'-ting  the  ob.**.  though  we  know  that  it  was 
an  old  peculiar  and  lasting  division  among  the  Spartan  people." 
— Grote's  "History  of  Greece,"  Murray's  ed,,  li,  362.  But  see 
Moller's  "Dorians?'  1,  c,  11,  80. 


226  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

most  interesting  portion  of  the  history  of  this  remarkable 
organization,  which  had  brought  human  society  out  of 
savagery,  and  carried  it  through  barbarism  into  the  early 
stages  of  civilization. 

The  social  system  of  the  Athenians  exhibits  the  fol- 
lowing series:  first,  the  gens  (genos)  founded  upon  kin; 
second,  the  phratry  {phratra  and  phratria),  a  brother- 
hood of  gentes  derived  by  segmentation,  probably,  from 
an  original  gens;  third,  the  tribe  {phylon,  later  phyle), 
composed  of  several  phratries,  the  members  of  which 
spoke  the  same  dialect ;  and  fourth,  a  people  or  nation, 
composed  of  several  tribes  united  by  coalescence  into  one 
gentile  society,  and  occupying  the  same  territory.  These 
integral  and  ascending  organizations  exhausted  their  so- 
cial system  under  the  gentes,  excepting  the  confederacy 
of  tribes  occupying  independent  territories,  which,  al- 
though it  occurred  in  some  instances  in  the  early  period 
and  sprang  naturally  out  of  gentile  institutions,  led  to 
no  important  results.  It  is  likely  that  the  four  Athenian 
tribes  confederated  before  they  coalesced,  the  last  occur- 
ring after  they  had  collected  in  one  territory  under  pres- 
sure from  other  tribes.  If  true  of  them,  it  would  be 
equally  true  of  the  Dorian  and  other  tribes.  When  such 
tribes  coalesced  into  a  nation,  there  was  no  term  in  the 
language  to  express  the  result,  beyond  a  national  name. 
The  Romans,  under  very  similar  institutions,  styled 
themselves  the  Populus  Romauus,  which  expressed  the 
fact  exactly.  They  were  then  simply  a  people,  and  noth- 
ing more ;  which  was  all  that  could  result  from  an  aggre- 
gation of  gentes,  curiae  and  tribes.  The  four  Athenian 
tribes  formed  a  society  or  people,  which  became  com- 
pletely autonomous  in  the  legendary  period  under  the 
name  of  the  Athenians.  Throughout  the  early  Grecian 
communities,  the  gens,  phratry  and  tribe  were  constant 
phenomena  of  their  social  systems,  with  the  occasional 
absence  of  the  phratry. 

Mr.  Grote  has  collected  the  principal  facts  with  respect 
to  the  Grecian  gentes  with  such  critical  ability  that  they 
cannot  be  presented  in  a  more  authoritative  manner  than 
in  his  own  language,  which  will  be  quoted  where  he  treats 
the  subject  generally.    After  commenting  upon  the  tribal 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS  227 

divisions  of  the  Greeks,  he  proceeds  as  follows :  "But  the 
Phratries  and  Gentes  are  a  distribution  completely  differ- 
ent from  this.  They  seem  aggregations  of  small  primi- 
tive unities  into  larger ;  they  are  independent  of,  and  do 
not  presuppose,  the  tribe ;  they  arise  separately  and  spon- 
taneously, without  preconcerted  uniformity,  and  without 
reference  to  a  common  political  purpose ;  the  legislator 
finds  them  pre-existing,  and  adapts  or  modifies  them  to 
answer  some  national  scheme.  W^e  must  distinguish  the 
general  fact  of  the  classification,  and  the  successive  sub- 
ordination in  the  scale,  of  the  families  to  the  gens,  of 
the  gentes  to  the  phratry-,  and  of  the  phratries  to  the 
tribe  —  from  the  precise  numerical  symmetry  with  which 
this  subordination  is  invested,  as  we  read  it,  —  thirty 
families  to  a  gens,  thirty  gentes  to  a  phratry,  three  phrat- 
ries to  each  tribe.  If  such  nice  equality  of  numbers  could 
ever  have  been  procured,  by  legislative  constraint,  oper- 
ating upon  pre-existent  natural  elements,  the  proportions 
could  not  have  been    permanently  maintained.     But    we 

may  reasonably  doubt  whether  it  did  ever  so  exist 

That  every  phratry  contained  an  equal  number  of  gentes, 
and  every  gens  an  equal  number  of  families,  is  a  suppo- 
sition hardly  admissible  without  better  evidence  than  we 
possess.  But  apart  from  this  questionable  precision  of 
numerical  scale,  the  Phratries  and  Gentes  themselves 
were  real,  ancient,  and  durable  associations  among  the 
Athenian  people,  highly  important  to  be  understood.  The 
basis  of  the  whole  was  the  house,  hearth,  or  family,- — a 
number  of  which,  greater  or  less,  composed  the  Gens  or 
Genos.  This  gens  was  therefore  a  clan,  sept,  or  enlarged, 
and  partly  factitious,  brotherhood,  bound  together  by,  — 
I.  Common  religious  ceremonies,  and  exclusive  privilege 
of  priesthood,  in  honor  of  the  same  god.  supposed  to  be 
the  primitive  ancestor,  and  characterized  by  a  snecial  sur- 
name. 2.  By  a  common  burial  place.  '  3.  By  mutual 
rights  of  succession  to  property.  4.  By  reciprocal  obli- 
gations of  help,  defense,  and  redress  of  injuries.  5.  By 
mutual  right  and  obligation  to  intermarry  in  certain  de- 
terminate cases,  especially  where    there  was    an  orphan 

I   —Demosthenes,  "Eubulldes,"  1307. 


228  ANCIENT  SOCIETT 

daughter  or  heiress.  6.  By  possession,  in  some  cases,  at 
least,  of  common  property,  an  archon  and  treasurer  of 
their  own.  Such  vy-ere  the  rights  and  obHgations  char- 
acterizing the  gentile  union.  The  phratric  union,  bind- 
ing together  several  gentes,  was  less  intimate,  but  still 
included  some  mutual  rights  and  obligations  of  an  anal- 
ogous character ;  especially  a  communion  of  particular 
sacred  rites,  and  mutual  privileges  of  prosecution  in  the 
event  of  a  phrator  being  slain.  Each  phratry  was  con- 
sidered as  belonging  to  one  of  the  four  tribes,  and  all  the 
phratries  of  the  same  tribe  enjoyed  a  certain  periodical 
communion  of  sacred  rites  under  the  presidency  of  a  mag- 
istrate called  the  Phylo-Basileus  or  tribe-king  selected 
from  the  Eupatrids."  ^ 

The  similarities  between  the  Grecian  and  the  Iroquois 
gens  will  at  once  be  recognized.  Differences  in  char- 
acteristics will  also  be  perceived,  growing  out  of  the 
more  advanced  condition  of  Grecian  society,  and  a  fuller 
development  of  their  religious  system.  It  will  not  be 
necessary  to  verify  the  existence  of  the  several  attributes 
of  the  gens  named  by  Mr.  Grote,  as  the  proof  is  plain 
in  the  classical  authorities.  There  were  other  character- 
istics which  doubtless  pertained  to  the  Grecian  gens,  al- 
though it  may  be  difficult  to  establish  the  existence  of  all 
of  them ;  such  as :  7.  The  limitation  of  descent  to  the 
male  line ;  8.  The  prohibition  of  intermarriage  in  the 
gens  excepting  in  the  case  of  heiresses;  9.  The  right  of 
adopting  strangers  into  the  gens;  and  10.  The  right  of 
electing  and  deposing  its  chiefs. 

The  rights,  privileges  and  obligations  of  the  members 
of  the  Grecian  gen?<  may  be  recapitulated,  with  the  addi- 
tions named,  as  follows : 

I.     Common  religious  rites. 

II.     A  common  burial  place.  ' 

TIL     Mutual  rights  of  succession  to  property  of  de- 
ceased members. 

IV.     Reciprocal  obligations  of    help,  defense  and  re- 
dress of  injuries. 


I    "Hiptory  of  Greece,"  iii,  53,     et  seq. 


THK  GRECIAN  GENS  *i^ 

V.     The  right  to  intermarry  in  the  gens  in  the  cases 
of  orpiian  daughters  and  heiresses. 
VI.     The  possession  of  common  property,  an  archon, 
and  a  treasurer. 
VII.     The  limitation  of  descent  to  the  male  line. 
VIII.     The  obligation  not  to  marry  in  the  gens  except 
in  speciHed  cases. 
IX.     The  right  to  adopt  strangers  into  the  gens. 
X.     The  right  to  elect  and  depose  its  chiefs. 
A  brief  reference  to  the  added  characteristics  should 
be  made. 

7.  Tlie  limitation  of  descent  to  the  male  line.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  such  was  the  rule,  because  it  is  proved 
by  their  genealogies.  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  in  any 
Greek  author  a  definition  of  a  gens  or  of  a  gentilis  that 
would  furnish  a  sufficient  test  of  the  right  of  a  given 
person  to  the  gentile  connection.  Cicero,  Varro  and 
Festus  have  defined  the  Roman  gens  and  gentilis,  which 
were  strictly  analogous  to  the  Grecian,  with  sufficient 
fullness  to  show  that  descent  was  in  the  male  line. 
From  the  nature  of  the  gens,  descent  was  either  in  the 
female  line  or  the  male,  and  included  but  a  moiety  of  the 
descendants  of  the  founder.  It  is  precisely  like  the  fam- 
ily among  ourselves.  Those  who  are  descended  from 
the  males  bear  the  family  name,  and  they  constitute  a 
gens  in  the  full  sense  of  the  term,  but  in  a  state  of  disper- 
sion, and  without  any  bond  of  union  excepting  those 
nearest  in  degree.  The  females  lose,  with  their  mar- 
riage, the  family  name,  and  with  their  children  are  trans- 
ferred to  another  family.  Grote  remarks  that  Aristotle 
was  the  "son  of  the  physician  Nikomachus  who  belonged 
to  the  gens  of  the  Asklepiads."  -  Whether  Aristotle  was 
of  the  gens  of  his  father  depends  upon  the  further  ques- 
tion v^-hether  they  both  derived  their  descent  from  Aescu- 
lapius, through  males  exclusively.  This  is  shown  by 
Laertius,    who    states    that    "Aristotle    was    tlie    son    of 

Nikomachus and    Nikomachus     was    descended 

from  Nikomachus  the  son  of  Machaon,  the  son  of  Aescu- 
lapius.'' -     Although   the  higher  members   of  the   series 

1  "History  of  Greece,"   iii,  60. 

2  Diogenes,  Laertius,   "Vit.   Aristotle,"  v,  I. 


d^  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

may  be  fabulous,  the  manner  of  tracing  the  descent 
would  show  the  gens  of  the  person.  The  statement  of 
Hermann,  on  the  authority  of  Isaeus,  is  also  to  the  point. 
"Every  infant  was  registered  in  the  phratria  and  clan  of 
its  father."*  Registration  in  the  gens  of  the  father  im- 
plies that  his  children  were  of  his  gens, 

8.  The  obligation  not  to  marry  in  the  gens  excepting 
in  specified  cases.  This  obligation  may  be  deduced  from 
the  consequences  of  marriage.  The  wife  by  her  mar- 
riage lost  the  religious  rites  of  her  gens,  and  acquired 
those  of  her  husband's  gens.  The  rule  is  stated  as  so 
general  as  to  imply  that  marriage  was  usually  out  of  the 
gens.  ''The  virgin  who  quits  her  father's  house," 
Wachsmuth  remarks,  "is  no  longer  a  sharer  of  the  pater- 
nal sacrificial  hearth,  but  enters  the  religious  commimion 
of  her  husband,  and  this  gave  sanctity  to  the  marriage 
tie."  ^  The  fact  of  her  registration  is  stated  by  Hermann 
as  follows :  "Every  newly  married  woman,  herself  a  cit- 
izen, was  on  this  account  enrolled  in  the  phratry  of  her 
husband."^  Special  religious  rites  (sacra  gentilicia)  were 
common  in  the  Grecian  and  Latin  gens.  Whether  the 
wife  forfeited  her  agnatic  rights  by  her  marriage,  as 
among  the  Romans,  I  am  unable  to  state.  It  is  not  prob- 
able that  marriage  severed  all  connection  with  her  gens, 
and  the  wife  doubtless  still  counted  herself  of  the  gens 
of  her  father. 

The  prohibition  of  intermarriage  in  the  gens  was  fun- 
damental in  the  archaic  period ;  and  it  undoubtedly  re- 
mained after  descent  was  changed  to  the  male  line,  with 
the  exception  of  heiresses  and  female  orphans  for  whose 
case  special  provision  was  made.  Although  a  tendency 
to  free  marriage,  beyond  certain  degrees  of  consanguin- 
ity, would  follow  the  complete  establishment  of  the 
monogamian  family,  the  rule  requiring  jiersons  to  marry 
out  of  their  own  gens  would  be  ajit  to  remain  so  long  as 
the  gens  v.as  the  basis  of  the  social  system.  The  special 
provision  in  respect  to  heiresses    tends     to    confirm    this 

f  "Political  AntlQulties  of  the  Greeks,"  c,  v,  s.  100;  and  vld« 
"Eubulldes"  of  Demosthenes,   24. 

2  "Historical  Antiquities  of  the  Greeks,"  Woolrych's  Trani., 
Oxford  ed.,  1837,  1.  451. 

i  "Political  Antiquities,  I.  c,"  cap.  v,  s.  100, 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS  481 

supposition.  Becker  remarks  upon  this  question,  that 
"relationship  was,  with  trifling  hmitations,  no  hindrance 
to  marriage,  which  could  take  place  within  all  degrees  of 
anchistcia,  or  sitngencia,  though  naturally  not  in  the 
gens  itself."  ^ 

9,  The  right  to  adopt  strangers  into  the  gens.  This 
right  was  practiced  at  a  later  day,  at  least  in  families; 
but  it  was  done  with  public  formalities,  and  was  doubt- 
less limited  to  special  cases.  ^  Purity  of  lineage  became  a 
matter  of  high  concern  in  the  Attic  gentes,  interposing 
no  doubt  serious  obstacles  to  the  use  of  the  right  except 
for  weighty  reasons. 

10.  The  right  to  elect  and  depose  its  chiefs.  This 
right  undoubtedly  existed  in  the  Grecian  gentes  in  the 
earlv  period.  Presumptively  it  was  possessed  by  them 
while  in  the  upper  Status  of  barbarism.  Each  gens  had 
its  archon,  which  was  the  common  name  for  a  chief. 
Whether  the  office  was  elective,  for  example,  in  the 
Plomeric  period,  or  was  transmitted  by  hereditary  right 
to  the  eldest  son,  is  a  question.  The  latter  was  not  the 
ancient  theory  of  the  office ;  and  a  change  so  great  and 
radical,  affecting  the  independence  and  personal  rights 
of  all  the  members  of  the  gens,  requires  positive  proof 
to  override  the  presumption  against  it.  Hereditary  right 
to  an  office,  carrying  with  it  authority  over,  and  obliga- 
tions from,  the  members  of  a  gens  is  a  very  different 
thing  from  an  office  bestowed  by  a  free  election,  with  the 
reserved  power  to  depose  for  unworthy  behavior.  The 
free  spirit  of  the  Athenian  gentes  down  to  the  time  of 
Solon  and  Cleisthenes  forbids  the  supposition,  as  to  them, 
that  they  had  parted  with  a  right  so  vital  to  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  members  of  the  gens.  I  have  not  been 
able  to  find  any  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  tenure  of 
this  office.  Hereditary  succession,  if  it  existed,  would 
indicate  a  remarkable  development  of  the  aristocratical 
element  in  ancient  society,  in  derogation  of  the  democrat- 
ical  constitution  of  the  gentes.     Moreover,  it  would  be  a 


1  "Charicles."  Metcalfe's  Trans..  T.oncL  ed.,  1866,  p.  477:  citing 
•*Isaeus  de  Cir.  her."  217:  •Demosthenes  adv.  Ebul.."  1304: 
•Plutarch,  Themlst.,"  32:  "Pausanias,"  1.  7,  1:  "Achlll.  Tat.."  1.  3. 

2  Hermann,   •"1.  c,"   v,  s.   100  and   101. 


2S%  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

sign  of  the  commencement,  at  least,  of  their  decadence. 
All  the  members  of  a  gens  were  free  and  equal,  the  rich 
and  the  poor  enjoying  equal  rights  and  privileges,  and 
acknowledging  the  same  in  each  other.  We  find  liberty, 
equality  and  fraternity,  written  as  plainly  in  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Athenian  gentes  as  in  those  of  the  Iroquois. 
Hereditary  right  to  the  principal  office  of  the  gens  ii 
totally  inconsistent  with  the  older  doctrine  of  equal  rights 
and  privileges. 

Whether  the  higher  offices  of  anax,  koiranos,  and 
basileus  were  transmitted  bv  hereditary  right  from  father 
to  son,  or  were  elective  or  confirmative  by  a  larger  con- 
stituency, is  also  a  question.  It  will  be  considered  else- 
where. The  former  would  indicate  the  subversion,  as 
the  latter  the  conservation,  of  gentile  institutions.  With- 
out decisive  evidence  to  the  contrary  every  presumption 
is  adverse  to  hereditary  right.  Some  additional  light  will 
be  gained  on  this  subject  when  the  Roman  gentes  are 
considered.  A  careful  re-investigation  of  the  tenure  of 
this  office  would,  not  unlikely,  modify  essentiallv  the  re- 
ceived accounts. 

It  may  be  considered  substantially  assured  that  the 
Grecian  gentes  possessed  the  ten  principal  attributes 
named.  All  save  three,  namely,  descent  in  the  male  line, 
marrying  into  the  gens  in  the  case  of  heiresses,  and  the 
possible  transmission  of  the  highest  military  office  by 
hereditary  right,  are  found  wdth  slight  variations  in  the 
gentes  o'f  the  Iroquois.  It  is  thus  rendered  apparent  that 
in  the  gentes.  both  the  Grecian  and  the  Iroquois  tribes 
possessed  the  same  original  institution,  the  one  having 
the  gens  in  its  later,  and  the  other  in  its  archaic  form. 

Recurring  now  to  the  quotation  from  ■Mr.  Grote,  it 
may  be  remarked  that  had  he  been  familiar  with  the 
archaic  form  of  the  gens,  and  with  the  several  forms  of 
the  family  anterior  to  the  monogamian,  he  would  prob- 
ably have  modified  essentially  some  portion  of  his  state- 
ment. An  exception  must  be  taken  to  his  position  that 
the  basis  of  the  social  system  of  the  Greeks  "was  the 
house,  hearth,  or  family."  The  form  of  the  family  In 
the  mind  of  the  distinguished  historian  was  evidently  the 
Roman,  under  the  iron-clad  rule  of  a  pat&  familias,  to 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS  S33 

which  the  Grecian  family  of  the  Homeric  period  approx- 
imated ill  the  complete  domination  of  the  father  over  the 
household.  It  would  have  been  equally  untenable  had 
other  and  anterior  forms  of  the  family  been  intended. 
The  gens,  in  its  origin,  is  older  than  the  monogamian 
family,  older  than  the  syndyasmian,  and  substantially 
contemporaneous  with  the  punaluan.  In  no  sense  was  it 
founded  upon  either.  It  does  not  recognize  the  existence 
of  the  family  of'  any  form  as  a  constituent  of  itself.  On 
the  contrary,  every  family  in  the  archaic  as  well  as  in 
the  later  period,  was  partly  within  and  partly  without  the 
gens,  because  husband  and  wife  must  belong  to  different 
gentgs.  The  explanation  is  both  simple  and  complete ; 
namely,  that  the  family  springs  up  independently  of  the 
gens  with  entire  freedom  to  advance  from  a  lower  into  a 
higher  form,  while  the  gens  is  constant,  as  well  as  the 
unit  of  the  social  system.  The  gens  entered  entire  into 
the  phratry,  the  phratry  entered  entire  into  the  tribe,  and 
the  tribe  entered  entire  into  the  nation ;  but  the  family 
could  not  enter  entire  into  the  gens  because  husband  and 
wife  must  belong  to  different  gentes. 

The  question  here  raised  is  important,  since  not  only 
Mr.  Grote,  but  also  Niebuhr,  Thirlwall,  ATaine,  Momm- 
sen,  and  many  other  able  and  acute  investigators  have 
taken  the  same  position  with  respect  to  the  monogamian 
family  of  the  patriarchal  type  as  the  integer  around 
which  society  integrated  in  the  Grecian  and  Roman  sys- 
tems. Nothing  whatever  was  based  upon  the  family  in 
any  of  its  forms,  because  it  was  incapable  of  entering  a 
gens  as  a  whole.  The  gens  was  homogeneous  and  to  a 
great  extent  permanent  in  duration,  and  as  such,  the  nat- 
ural basis  of  a  social  system.  A  family  of  the  monog- 
amian type  might  have  become  individualized  and  power- 
ful in  a  gens,  and  in  society  at  large ;  but  the  gens  never- 
theless did  not  and  could  not  recognize  or  depend  upon 
the  family  as  an  integer  of  itself.  The  same  remarks 
are  equally  true  with  respect  to  the  modern  family  and 
political  society.  Although  individualized  by  property 
rights  and  privileges,  and  recognized  as  a  legal  entity  by 
statutory  enactment,  the  family  is.  not  the  unit  of  the 
political   system.     The  state  recognizes  the  counties  of 


1^34  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

which  it  is  composed,  the  county  its  townships,  but  the 
township  takes  no  note  of  the  family ;  so  the  nation  rec- 
ognized its  tribes,  the  tribe  its  phratries,  and  the  phra- 
try  its  gentes ;  but  the  gens  took  no  note  of  the  family. 
In  dealing  with  the  structure  of  society,  organic  relations 
alone  are  to  be  considered.  The  township  stands  in  the 
same  relation  to  political  society  that  the  gens  did  to  gen- 
tile society.     Each  is  the  unit  of  a  system. 

There  are  a  number  of  valuable  observations  by  Mr. 
Grotc,  upon  the  Grecian  gentes,  which  I  desire  to  incor- 
porate as  an  exposition  of  them ;  although  these  observa- 
tions seem  to  imply  that  they  are  no  older  than  the  then 
existing  mythology,  or  hierarchy  of  the  gods  from  the 
members  of  which  some  of  the  gentes  claimed  to  have 
derived  their  eponymous  ancestor.  In  the  light  of  the 
facts  presented,  the  gentes  are  seen  to  have  existed  long 
before  this  mythology  was  developed  ^ —  before  Jupiter  or 
Neptune,  Mars  or  Venus  were  conceived  in  the  human 
mind. 

Mr.  Grote  proceeds :  "Thus  stood  the  primitive  relig- 
ious and  social  union  of  the  population  of  Attica  in  its 
gradually  ascending  scale  —  as  distinguished  from  the 
political  union,  probably  of  later  introduction,  repre- 
sented at  first  by  the  trittyes  and  naukraries.  and  in  after 
times  by  the  ten  Kleisthenean  tribes,  subdivided  into 
trittyes  and  demes.  The  religious  and  family  bond  of 
aggregation  is  the  earlier  of  the  two ;  but  the  political 
bond,  though  beginning  later,  will  be  found  to  acauire 
constantly  increasing  influence  throughout  the  greater 
part  of  this  history.  In  the  former,  personal  relation  is 
the  essential  and  predominant  characteristic  —  local  rela- 
tion being  subordinate ;  in  the  latter,  property  and  resi- 
dence become  the  chief  considerations,  and  the  personal 
element  counts  only  as  measured  along  with  these  accom- 
paniments. All  these  phratric  and  gentile  associations, 
the  larger,  as  well  as  the  smaller,  were  founded  upon  the 
same  principles  and  tendencies  of  the  Grecian  mind  —  a 
coalescence  of  the  idea  of  worship  with  that  of  ancestry, 
or  of  communion  in  certain  special  religious  rites  with 
communion  of  blood,  real  or  supposed.  The  god  or  hero, 
to  whom  the  assembled  members  offered  their  sacrifices, 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS  235 

was  conceived  as  the  primitive  ancestor  to  whom  they 
owed  their  origin ;  often  through  a  long  Hst  of  interme- 
diate names,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Milesian  Hekatsus,  sc 
often  before  referred  to.  Each  family  had  its  own  sacred 
rites  and  funeral  commemorations  of  ancestors ,  cele- 
brated by  the  master  of  the  house,  to  which  none  but 
members  of  the  family  were  admissible.  .  .  .  The  larger 
associations,  called  gens,  phratry,  tribe,  were  formed  by 
an  extension  of  the  same  principle  —  of  the  family  con- 
sidered as  a  religious  brotherhood,  worshiping  some  com- 
mon god  or  hero  with  an  appropriate  surname,  and  rec- 
ognizing him  as  their  joint  ancestor :  and  the  festival  of 
Theoenia,  and  Apaturia  (the  first  Attic,  the  second  com- 
mon to  all  the  Ionian  race")  annually  brought  together 
the  members  of  these  phratries  and  gentes  for  worship, 
festivity,  and  maintenance  of  special  sympathies ;  thus 
strengthening  the  larger  ties  without  eflFacing  the  smaller. 
.  .  .  But  the  historian  must  accept  as  an  ultimate  fact 
the  earliest  state  of  things  which  his  witnesses  make 
known  to  him.  and  in  the  case  now  before  us.  the  gentile 
and  phratric  unions  are  matters  into  the  beginning  of 
which  we  cannot  pretend  to  penetrate."  ^ 

"The  gentes  both  at  Athens,  and  in  other  parts  of 
Greece,  bore  a  patronymic  name,  the  stamp  of  their  be- 
lieved common  paternity.  '^  .  .  .  But  at  Athens,  at  least 
after  the  revolution  of  Kleisthenes.  the  gentile  name  was 
not  employed :  a  man  was  described  by  his  own  single 
name,  followed  first  by  the  name  of  his  father,  and  next 
by  that  of  the  deme  to  which  he  belonged. — as  Aeschines 
son  of  Atromctns.  a  Kothokid.  .  .  .  The  gens  constittited 
a  close  incorporation,  both  as  to  property  and  as  to  per- 
sons.    Until  the  time  of  Solon,  no  man  had  any  power 

1  "History   of  Greece,"    iii,   55. 

2  "We  find  the  Asklepladte  In  many  parts  of  Greece— the 
Aleuadie  in  Thessaly— the  Midylida,  Psalychldte,  Belpsiadse, 
Euxenldae.  at  Aeeina— the  BranchidtP  at  Miletus— the  Nebridpe 
at  K6s— the  lamidfe  and  Klytiadae  at  Olympia— the  Akestoridse 
at  Argos—the  Kinyradii?  at  Cyprus— the  Penthilid;p  at  Mitvlene 
—the  Talthybiadnp  at  Sparta— not  less  than  the  Kodridie."  Eu- 
molpldse,  Pliytalidce.  Lykomedae,  Butadfe,  Euneidae,  Hesychldge, 
BrytiadEe,  etc..  in  Attica.  To  each  of  these  corresponded  a 
mythical  ancestor  more  or  less  known,  and  passing  for  the  first 
father  as  well  as  the  eponymous  hero  of  the  g-ens-Kodrus, 
Eumolpus.  Butes,  Phytalus,  Hesychus,  etc."— Crete's  "Hist,  of 
Greece,"  Hi.  62. 


23^  ANCIENT  "SOCIETY 

of  testamentary  disposition.  If  he  died  without  children, 
his  eennetes  succeeded  to  his  property,  and  so  they  con- 
tinued to  do  even  after  Solon,  if  he  died  intestate.  An 
orphan  girl  might  be  claimed  in  marriage  of  right  by  any 
member  of  the  gens^  the  nearest  agnates  being  preferred ; 
if  she  was  poor,  and  he  did  not  choose  to  marry  her  him- 
self, the  law  of  Solon  compelled  him  to  provide  her  with 
a  dowry  proportional  to  his  enrolled  scale  of  property, 
and  to  give  her  out  in  marriage  to  another.  ...  If  a  man 
was  murdered,  first  his  near  relations,  next  his  gennetes 
and  phrators,  were  both  allowed  and  required  to  prose- 
cute the  crime  at  law ;  while  his  fellow  demots,  or  inhab- 
itants of  the  same  deme,  did  not  possess  the  like  right  of 
prosecuting.  All  that  we  hear  of  the  most  ancient 
Athenian  laws  is  based  upon  the  gentile  and  phratric  divi- 
sions, which  are  treated  throughout  as  extensions  of  the 
family.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  this  division  is  com- 
pletely independent  of  any  property  qualification  —  rich 
men  as  well  as  poor  being  comprehended  in  the  same 
gens.  Moreover,  the  diflFerent  gentes  were  very  unequal 
in  dignity,  arising  chiefly  from  the  religious  ceremonies 
of  which  each  possessed  the  hereditary  and  exclusive 
administration,  and  which,  being  in  some  cases  consid- 
ered of  pre-eminent  sanctity  in  reference  to  the  whole 
city,  were  therefore  nationalized.  Thus  the  Eumolpidre 
and  Kerykes,  who  supplied  the  hierophant  and  superin- 
tendent of  the  mysteries  of  the  Eleusinian  Demeter  —  and 
the  Butadae,  who  furnished  the  priestess  of  Athene  Polias, 
as  well  as  the  priest  of  Poseidon  Erechtheus  in  the  Acrop- 
olis —  seem  to  have  been  reverenced  above  all  the  other 
gentes."^ 

Mr.  Grote  speaks  of  the  gens  as  an  extension  of  the 
family,  and  as  presupposing  its  existence ;  treating  the 
family  as  primary  and  the  gens  as  secondary.  This  view, 
for  the  reasons  stated,  is  untenable.  The  two  organiza- 
tions proceed  upon  different  principles  and  are  independ- 
ent of  each  other.  The  gens  embraces  a  part  only  of  the 
descendants  of  a  supposed  common  ancestor,  and  ex- 
cludes the  remainder;  it  also  embraces  a  part  only  of  a 

X  "History  of  Greece,"   HI,   62,     et   seq. 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS  287 

famil}',  and  excludes  the  remainder.  In  order  tc  be  a 
constituent  of  the  gens,  the  family  should  enter  entire 
within  its '  folds,  which  was  impossible  in  the  archaic 
period,  and  constructive  only  in  the  later.  In  the  organ- 
ization of  gentile  society  the  gens  is  primary,  forming 
both  the  basis  and  the  unit  of  the  system.  The  family 
also  is  primary,  and  older  than  the  gens ;  the  punaluan 
and  the  consanguine  families  having  preceded  it  in  the 
order  of  time ;  but  it  was  not  a  member  of  the  organic 
series  in  ancient  society  any  more  than  it  is  in  modern. 
The  gens  existed  in  the  Aryan  family  when  the  Latin, 
Grecian  and  Sanskrit  speaking  tribes  were  one  people,  as 
is  shown  by  the  presence  in  their  dialects  of  the  same 
term  (gens,  genos,  and  ganas)  to  express  the  organiza- 
tion. They  derived  it  from  their  barbarous  ancestors, 
and  more  remotely  from  their  savage  progenitors.  If 
the  Aryan  family  became  differentiated  as  early  as  the 
Middle  period  of  barbarism,  which  seems  probable,  the 
gens  must  have  been  transmitted  to  them  in  its  archaic 
form.  After  that  event,  and  during  the  long  periods  of 
time  which  elapsed  between  the  separation  of  these  tribes 
from  each  other  and  the  commencement  of  civilization, 
those  changes  in  the  constitution  of  the  gens,  which  have 
been  noticed  hypothetically,  must  have  occurred.  It  is 
impossible  to  conceive  of  the  gens  as  appearing,  for  the 
first  time,  in  any  other  than  its  archaic  form ;  conse- 
quently the  Grecian  gens  must  have  been  originally  in 
this  form.  If,  then,  causes  can  be  found  adequate  to 
account  for  so  great  a  change  of  descent  as  that  from 
the  female  line  to  the  male,  the  argument  will  be  com- 
plete, although  in  the  end  it  substituted  a  new  body  of 
kindred  in  the  gens  in  place  of  the  old.  The  growth  of 
the  idea  of  property,  and  the  rise  of  monogamy,  furnished 
motives  sufficiently  powerful  to  demand  and  obtain  this 
change  in  order  to  bring  children  into  the  gens  of  their 
father,  and  into  a  participation  in  the  inheritance  of  his 
estate.  Monogamy  assured  the  paternity  of  children, 
which  was  unknown  when  the  gens  was  instituted,  and 
the  exclusion  of  children  from  the  inheritance  was  no 
longer  possible.  In  the  face  of  the  new  circumstances, 
the  gens  would  be  forced  into  reconstruction  or  dissolu- 


238  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

tion.  When  the  gens  of  the  Iroquois,  as  it  appeared  in 
the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  is  placed  beside  the  gens 
of  tha  Grecian  tribes  as  it  appeared  in  the  Upper  Status, 
it  is  impossible  not  to  perceive  that  they  are  the  same 
organization,  the  one  in  its  archaic  and  the  other  in  its 
ultimate  form.  The  differences  between  them  are  pre- 
cisely those  which  would  have  been  forced  upon  the  gens 
by  the  exigencies  of  human  progress. 

Along  with  these  mutations  in  the  constitution  of  the 
gens  are  found  the  parallel  mutations  in  the  rule  of  inher- 
itance. Property,  always  hereditary  in  the  gens,  was  first 
hereditary  among  the  gentiles ;  secondly,  hereditary 
among  the  agnates,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  remaining 
gentiles ;  and  now.  thirdly,  hereditary  among  the  agnates 
in  succession,  in  the  order  of  their  nearness  to  the  dece- 
dent, which  gave  an  exclusive  inheritance  to  the  children 
as  the  nearest  agnates.  The  pertinacity  with  which  the 
principle  was  maintained  down  to  the  time  of  Solon,  that 
the  property  should  remain  in  the  gens  of  the  decease'"! 
owner,  illustrates  the  vitality  of  the  organization  through 
all  these  periods.  It  was  this  rule  which  compelled  the 
heiress  to  marry  in  her  own  gens  to  prevent  a  transfer 
of  the  property  by  her  marriage  to  another  gens.  When 
Solon  allowed  the  owner  of  property  to  dispose  of  it  by 
will,  in  case  he  had  no  children,  he  made  the  first  inroad 
upon  the  property  rights  of  the  gens. 

How-  nearly  the  members  of  a  gens  were  related,  or 
whether  they  were  related  at  all.  has  been  made  a  ques- 
tion. Mr.  Grote  remarked  that  "Pollux  informs  us  dis- 
tinctly that  the  members  of  the  same  gens  at  Athens  were 
not  commonly  related  by  blood.  —  and  even  without  any 
express  testimony  we  might  have  concluded  such  to  be 
the  fact.  To  what  extent  the  gens,  at  the  unknown  epoch 
of  its  formation  was  based  upon  actual  relationship,  we 
have  no  means  of  determining,  either  with  regard  to  the 
Athenian  or  the  Roman  gentes,  which  were  in  the  main 
points  analogous.  Gentilism  is  a  tie  by  itself;  distinct 
from  the  family  ties,  but  presupposing  their  existence 
and  extending  them  by  an  artificial  analogy,  partly 
founded  in  religious  belief,  and  partly  on  positive  com- 
pact, so  as  to  comprehend  strangers  in  blood.     All  the 


THE  GRECIAN  GENS  236 

members  of  one  gens,  or  even  of  one  phratry,  believed 
themselves  to  be  sprung,  not  indeed  from  the  same  grand- 
father or  great-grandfather,  but  from  the  same  divine  or 
heroic  ancestor.  .  .  .  And  this  fundamental  belief,  into 
which  the  Greek  mind  passed  with  so  much  facility,  was 
adopted  and  converted  by  positive  compact  into  the  gen- 
tile and  phratric  principle  of  union.  .  .  .  Doubtless  Nie- 
buhr,  in  his  valuable  discussion  of  the  ancient  Roman 
gentes,  is  right  in  supposing  that  they  were  not  real  fam- 
ilies, procreated  from  any  common  historical  ancestor. 
Still  it  is  not  the  less  true  (although  he  seems  to  sup- 
pose otherwise)  that  the  idea  of  the  gens  involved  the 
belief  in  a  common  first  father,  divine  or  heroic  • —  a  gene- 
alogy which  we  may  properly  call  fabulous,  but  which 
was  consecrated  and  accredited  among  the  members  of 
the  gens  itself;  and  served  as  one  important  bond  of 
union  between  them.  .  .  .  The  natural  families  of  course 
changed  from  generation  to  generation,  some  extending 
themselves,  while  others  diminished  or  died  out :  but  the 
gens  received  no  alterations,  except  through  the  procrea- 
tion, extinction,  or  subdivision  of  these  component  fam- 
ilies. Accordingly  the  relations  of  the  families  with  the 
gens  were  in  perpetual  course  of  fluctuation,  and  the  gen- 
tile ancestorial  genealogy,  adapted  as  it  doubtless  was_to 
the  early  condition  of  the  gens,  became  in  process  of  time 
partiallv  obsolete  and  unsuitable.  We  hear  of  this  gene- 
alog}'  but  rarely,  because  it  is  only  brought  before  the 
public  in  certain  cases  pre-eminent  and  venerable.  But 
the  humbler  gentes  had  their  common  rites,  and  common 
superhuman  ancestor  and  genealogy,  as  well  as-  the  more 
celebrated :  the  scheme  and  ideal  basis  was  the  same  in 
all."  1 

The  several  statements  of  Pollux,  Niebuhr  and  Grotc 
are  true  in  a  certain  sense,  but  not  absolutely  so.  The 
lineage  of  a  gens  ran  back  of  the  acknowledged  ancestor, 
and  therefore  the  gens  of  ancient  date  could  not  have  had 
a  known  progenitor;  neither  could  the  fact  of  a  blood 
connection  be  proved  by  their  system  of  consanguinity; 
nevertheless  the  gentiles  not  only  believed  in  their  com- 


I    "Hl5t.  of  Greece,"  Ui.  58.     et  secv 


240  >JS-CIENT  SOriETT 

rrn  ctf  :e:  :.  *:.:!:  were  justij&ed  in  so  believing.  The  sys- 
tr—  ::  : ::  -::  ~::-:tv  which  pertained  to  the  gens  in  its 
ar:'  1  :  :  hich  the  Greeks  probably  once  ^os- 

?f5  ^  _    '  '.    1   knowlecge  of  the  relationships  of 

:  r-     ;'  :    ^tns  to  each  other.     This  fell  into 

le  w!iii  the  rise  of  the  monogamian  family,  as  I 
"deavor  elsewhere  to  show.     The  gentile  name 
-  :  ligree  beside  which  that  of  a  family  was  in- 

_  It  was  the  function  of  this  name  to  preserv-e 

..  :i;  :  :  r  common  descent  of  those  who  bore  it; 
LSI  i.\t  Ij^-i^i  of  the  gens  was  so  ancient  that  its  mem- 
bers could  not  prove  the  actual  relationship  existing  be- 
tween them,  except  in  a  limited  number  of  cases  through 
recent  common  ancestors.  The  name  itself  was  the  evi- 
dence of  a  common  descent,  and  conclusive,  except  as  it 
was  liable  to  interruption  through  the  adoption  of  stran- 
gers in  blood  in  the  previous  history  of  the  gens.  The 
practical  denial  of  all  relationship  between  its  members 
made  by  Pollux  and  Niebuhr,  which  would  change  the 
gens  into  a  purely  fictitious  association,  has  no  ground  to 
rest  upon.  A  large  proportion  of  the  number  could  prove 
their  relationship  through  descent  frorh  common  ances- 
tors within  the  gens,  and  as  to  the  remainder  the  gentile 
name  they  bore  was  sufficient  e\ndence  of  common  descent 
for  practical  purposes.  The  Grecian  gens  was  not  usu- 
ally a  large  bod}^  of  persons.  Tbirt>-  families  to  a  gens, 
not  counting  the  wives  of  the  heads  of  families,  would 
give,  by  the  common  rule  of  computation,  an  average  of 
one  hundred  and  twenty  persons  to  the  gens. 

As  the  unit  of  the  organic  social  system,  the  gens 
would  naturall}^  become  the  centre  of  social  life  and  activ- 
ity. It  was  organized  as  a  social  body,  with  its  archon 
or  chief,  and  treasurer:  having  common  lands  to  some 
extent,  a  common  burial  place,  and  common  religious 
rites.  Beside  these  were  the  rights,  pririleges  and  obli- 
gations which  the  gens  conferred  and  imposed  upon  all 
its  members.  It  was  in  the  gens  that  the  religious  activ- 
ity of  the  Greeks  originated,  which  expanded  over  the 
phratries,  and  culminated  in  periodical  festivals  common 
to  all  the  tribes.    This  subject  has  been  adrtiirably  treated 


THE   GRECIAN  GENS  241 

by  M.  De  Coulanges  in  his  recent  work  on  '"The  Ancient 
City." 

In  order  to  undcstand  the  condition  of  Grecian  soci- 
ety, anterior  to  the  formation  of  the  state,  it  is  necessary 
to  know  the  constitution  and  principles  of  the  Grecian 
gens ;  for  the  character  of  the  unit  determines  the  char- 
acter of  its  compounds  in  the  ascending  series,  and  can 
alone  furnish  the  means  for  their  explanation. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE    GRECIAN    PHRATRY^     TRIBE    AND    NATION 

The  phratry,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  second  stage  of 
organization  in  the  Grecian  social  system.  It  consisted 
of  several  gentes  united  for  objects,  especially  religious, 
which  were  common  to  them  all.  It  had  a  natural  foun- 
dation in  the  bond  of  kin,  as  the  gentes  in  a  phratry  were 
probably  subdivisions  of  an  original  gens,  a  knowledge 
of  the  fact  having  been  preserved  by  tradition.  "All  the 
contemporary  members  of  the  phratry  of  Hekatseus,"  Mr. 
Grote  remarks,  "had  a  common  god  for  their  ancestor 
at  the  sixteenth  degree,"  '  which  could  not  have  been 
asserted  unless  the  several  gentes  comprised  in  the  phra- 
try of  Hekataeus,  were  supposed  to  be  derived  by  seg- 
mentation from  an  original  gens.  This  genealogy,  al- 
though in  part  fabulous,  would  be  traced  according  to 
gentile  usages.  Diksearchus  supposed  that  the  practice 
of  certain  gentes  in  supplying  each  other  with  wives,  led 
to  the  phratric  organization  for  the  performance  of  com- 
mon religious  rites.  This  is  a  plausible  explanation,  be- 
cause such  marriages  would  intermingle  the  blood  of  the 
gentes.  On  the  contrary,  gentes  formed,  in  the  course  of 
time,  by  the  division  of  a  gens  and  by  subsequent  sub- 
divisions, would  give  to  all  a  common  lineage,  .and  form 
a  natural  basis  for  their  re-integration  in  a  phratry.  As 
such  the  phratry  would  be  a  natural  growth,  and  as  such 
only  can  it  be  explained  as  a  gentile  institution.  The 
gentes  thus  united  were  brother  gentes.  and  the  associa- 
tion itself  was  a  brotherhood  as  the  term  imports. 

I    "History  of  Greece,"  Hi,  58. 

242 


GRECIAN  PHRATRY.   TRIBE  AND  NATION  243 

Stephanus  of  Byzantium  has  preserved  a  fragment  of 
Dikaearchus,  in  which  an  explanation  of  the  origin  of 
the  gens,  phratry  and  tribe  is  suggested.  It  is  not  full 
enough,  with  respect  to  either,  to'  amount  to  a  definition ; 
but  it  is  valuable  as  a  recognition  of  the  three  stages  of 
organization  in  ancient  Grecian  society.  He  uses  patry 
in  the  place  of  gens,  as  Pindar  did  in  a  number  of  in- 
stances, and  Homer  occasionally.  The  passage  may  be 
rendered  :  "Patry  is  one  of  three  forms  of  social  union 
among  the  Greeks,  according  to  Dikaearchus,  which  we 
call  respectively,  patry,  phratry,  and  tribe.  The  patry 
vomes  into  being  when  relationship,  originally  solitary, 
passes  over  into  the  second  stage  [the  relationship  of 
parents  with  children  and  children  with  parents],  and 
derives  its  eponym  from  the  oldest  and  chief  member  of 
the  patry,  as  Aicidas,  Pelopidas." 

"But  it  came  to  be  called  phatria  and  phratria  when 
certain  ones  gave  their  daughters  to  be  married  into  an- 
other patry.  For  the  woman  who  was  given  in  marriage 
participated  no  longer  in  her  paternal  sacred  rites,  but 
was  enrolled  in  the  patry  of  her  husband ;  so  that  for  the 
union,  formerly  subsisting  by  affection  between  sisters 
and  brothers,  there  was  established  another  union  based 
on  community  of  religious  rites,  which  they  denominated 
a  phratry;  and  so  that  again,  while  the  patry  took  its  rise 
in  the  way  we  have  previously  mentioned,  from  the  blood 
relation  between  parents  and  children  and  children  and 
parents,  the  phratry  took  its  rise  from  the  relationship 
between  brothers." 

''But  tribe  and  tribesmen  were  so  called  from  the 
coalescence  into  communities  and  nations  so  called,  for 
each  of  the  coalescing  bodies  was  called  a  tribe."  * 

It  will  be  noticed  that  marriage  out  of  the  gens  is  here 
recognized  as  a  custom,  and  that  the  wife  was  enrolled  in 
the  gens,  rather  than  the  phratry,  of  her  husband. 
Dikaearchus,  who  was  a  pupil  of  Aristotle,  lived  at  a  time 
when  the  gens  existed  chiefly  as  a  pedigree  of  individuals, 
its  powers  having  been  transferred  to  new  political  bodies. 

t   TV^achpmuth's  "Historical  Antiquities  of  the  Greeks."   1.  c.,  i. 
449,  app.  for  text.. 


244  ANCIENT  SOCIETT 

He  derived  the  origin  of  the  gens  from  primitive  times ; 
but  his  statement  that  the  phratry  originated  in  the  mat- 
rimonial practices  of  the  gentes,  while  true  doubtless  as 
to  the  practice,  is  but  an  opinion  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
organization.  Intermarriages,  with  common  religious 
rites,  would  cement  the  phratric  union ;  but  a  more  satis- 
factor_y  foundation  of  the  phratry  may  be  found  in  the 
common  lineage  of  the  gentes  of  which  it  was  composed. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  the  gentes  have  a  history 
running  back  through  the  three  sub-periods  of  barbarism 
into  the  previous  period  of  savagery,  antedating  the  exist- 
ence even  of  the  Aryan  and  Semitic  families.  The  phra- 
try has  been  shown  to  have  appeared  among  the  Amer- 
ican aborigines  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism ;  while 
the  Greeks  were  familiar  with  so  much  only  of  their  for- 
mer history  as  pertained  to  the  Upper  Status  of  bar- 
barism. 

Mr.  Grote  does  not  attempt  to  define  the  functions  of 
the  phratry,  except  generally.  They  were  doubtless  of  a 
religious  character  chiefly ;  but  they  probably  manifested 
themselves,  as  among  the  Iroquois,  at  the  burial  of  the 
dead,  at  public  games,  at  religious  festivals,  at  councils, 
and  at  the  agoras  of  the  people,  where  the  grouping  of 
chiefs  and  people  would  be  by  pfiratries  rather  than  by 
gentes.  It  would  also  naturally  show  itself  in  the  array 
of  the  military  forces,  of  which  a  memorable  example  is 
given  by  Homer  in  the  address  of  Nestor  to  Agamem- 
non. ^  "Se]:)arate  the  troops  by  tribes  and  by  phratries, 
Agamemnon,  so  that  phratry  may  support  phratry,  and 
tribes,  tribes.  If  thou  wilt  thus  act,  and  the  Greeks  obey. 
thou  wilt  then  ascertain  which  of  the  commanders  and 
which  of  the  soldiers  is  a  coward,  and  which  of  them 
may  be  brave,  for  they  will  fight  their  best."  The  num- 
ber from  the  same  gens  in  a  military  force  would  be  too 
small  to  be  made  a  basis  in  the  organization  of  an  army : 
but  the  larger  aggregations  of  the  phratries  and  tribes 
would  be  sufficient.  Two  things  may  be  inferred  from 
the  advice  of  Nestor :  first,  that  the  organization  of  armies 
by  phratries  and  tribes  had  then  ceased  to  be  common; 

1   "Iliad,"  H.  36?. 


GRECIAN   PHRATRY,   TRIBE   AND   NATION  245 

and  secondly,  that  in  ancient  times  it  had  been  the  usual 
plan  of  army  organization,  a  knowledge  of  which  had 
not  then  disappeared.  We  have  seen  that  the  Tlascalans 
and  Aztecs,  who  were  in  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism, 
organized  and  sent  out  their  military  bands  by  phratries 
which,  in  their  condition,  was  probably  the  only  method 
in  which  a  military  force  could  be  organized.  The  ancient 
German  tribes  organized  their  armies  for  battle  en  a  sim- 
ilar principle.^  It  is  interesting  to  notice  how  closely 
shut  in  the  tribes  of  mankind,  have  been  to  the  theory  of 
their  social  system. 

The  obligation  of  blood  revenge,  which  was  turned  at 
a  later  day  mto  a  duty  of  prosecuting  the  murderer  before 
the  legal  tribunals,  rested  primarily  upon  the  gens  of  the 
slain  person ;  but  it  was  also  shared  in  by  the  phratry. 
and  became  a  phratric  obligation."'*  In  the  Eumenides  of 
Aeschylus,  the  Erinnys,  after  speaking  of  the  slaying  of 
his  mother  by  Orestes,  put  the  question :  "What  lustral 
water  of  his  phrators  shall  await  him?'"  which  seems  to 
imply  that  if  the  criminal  escaped  punishment  final  puri- 
fication was  performed  by  his  phratry  instead  of  his  gens. 
Moreover,  the  extension  of  the  obligation  from  the  gens 
to  the  phratry  implies  a  common  lineage  of  all  the  gentes 
in  a  phratry. 

Since  the  phratry  was  intermediate  between  the  gens 
and  the  tribe,  and  not  invested  with  governmental  func- 
tions, it  was  less  fundamental  and  less  important  than 
either  of  the  others;  but  it  was  a  common,  natural  and 
perhaps  necessary  stage  of  re-integration  between  the 
two.  Could  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the  social  life  of 
the  Greeks  in  that  early  period  be  recovered,  the  phe- 
nomena would  centre  probably  in  the  phratric  organiza- 
tion far  more  conspicuously  than  our  scanty  records  lead 
us  to  infer.  It  probably  possessed  more  power  and  influ- 
ence than  is  usually  ascribed  to  it  as  an  organization. 
Among  the  Athenians  it  survived  the  overthrow  of  the 
gentes  as  the  basis  of  a  system,  and  retained,  under  the 

1  Tacitus,    "Germanla,"  cap.  vll. 

2  Grote's  "History  of  Greece,"  ill,  55.    The  Court  of  Areopagus 
took  jurisdiction  over  homicides.— lb.,  111.   79. 

3  — "Eum.,"  656. 


246  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

new  political  system,  some  control  over  the  registration 
of  citizens,  the  enrollment  of  marriages  and  the  prosecu- 
tion of  the  murderer  of  a  phrator  before  the  courts. 

It  is  customary  to  speak  of  the  four  Athenian  tribes  as 
divided  each  into  three  phratries,  and  of  each  phratry  as 
divided  into  thirty  gentes ;  but  this  is  merely  for  con- 
venience in  description.  A  people  under  gentile  institu- 
tions do  not  divide  themselves  into  symmetrical  divisions 
and  subdivisions.  The  natural  process  of  their  forma- 
tion was  the  exact  reverse  of  this  method ;  the  gentes  fell 
into  phratries,  and  ultimatelv  into  tribes,  which  reunited 
in  a  society  or  a  people.  Each  was  a  natural  growth. 
That  the  number  of  gentes  in  each  Athenian  phratry  was 
thirty  is  a  remarkable  fact  incapable  of  explanation  by 
natural  causes.  A  motive  sufficiently  powerful,  such  as 
a  desire  for  a  symmetrical  organization  of  the  phratries 
and  tribes,  might  lead  to  a  subdivision  of  gentes  by  con- 
sent until  the  number  was  raised  to  thirty  in  each  of  these 
phratries ;  and  when  the  number  in  a  tribe  was  in  excess, 
by  the  consolidation  of  kindred  gentes  until  the  number 
was  reduced  to  thirty.  A  more  probable  way  would  be 
by  the  admission  of  alien  gentes  into  phratries  needing 
an  increase  of  number.  Having  a  certain  number  of 
tribes,  phratries  and  gentes  by  natural  growth,  the  reduc- 
tion of  the  last  two  to  uniformity  in  the  four  tribes  could 
thus  have  been  secured.  Once  cast  in  this  numerical 
scale  of  thirty  gentes  to  a  phratry  and  three  phratries  to 
a  tribe,  the  proportion  might  easily  have  been  maintained 
for  centuries,  except  perhaps  as  to  the  number  of  gentes 
in  each  phratry. 

The  religious  life  of  the  Grecian  tribes  had  its  centre 
and  source  in  the  gentes  and  phratries.  It  must  be  sup- 
posed that  in  and  through  these  organizations,  was  per- 
fected that  marvelous  polytheistic  system,  with  its  hier- 
archy of  gods,  its  symbols  and  forms  of  worship,  which 
impressed  so  powerifully  the  mind  of  the  classical  world. 
In  no  small  degree  this  mythology  inspired  the  great 
achievements  of  the  legendary  and  historical  periods,  and 
created  that  enthusiasm  which  produced  the  temple  and 
ornamental  architecture  in  which  the  modern  world  has 
taken   so   much    delight.     Some   of   the   religious   rites, 


GRECIAN   PHRATRY,   TRIBE   AND   NATION  247' 

which  originated  in  these  social  aggregates,  were  nation- 
alized from  the  superior  sanctity  they  were  supposed  to 
possess ;  thus  showing  to  what  extent  the  gentes  and 
phratries  were  nurseries  of  religion.  The  events  of  this 
extraordinary  period,  the  most  eventful  in  many  respects 
in  the  history  of  the  Aryan  family,  are  lost,  in  the  main, 
to  history.  Legendary  genealogies  and  narratives,  myths 
and  fragments  of  poetry,  concluding  with  the  Homeric 
and  Hesiodic  poems,  make  up  its  literary  remains.  But 
their  institutions,  arts,  inventions,  mythological  system, 
in  a  word  the  substance  of  civilization  which  they 
wrought  out  and  brought  with  them,  were  the  legacy  they 
contributed  to  the  new  society  they  were  destined  to 
found.  The  history  of  the  period  may  yet  be  recon- 
structed from  these  various  sources  of  knowledge,  repro- 
ducing the  main  features  of  gentile  society  as  they  ap- 
peared shortly  before  the  institution  of  political  society. 

As  the  gens  had  its  archon,  who  officiated  as  its  priest 
in  the  religious  observances  of  the  gens,  so  each  phratry 
had  its  phratriarch,  who  presided  at  its  meetings,  and 
officiated  in  the  solemnization  of  its  religious  rites,  "The 
phratry,"  observes  M.  De  Coulanges,  "had  its  assemblies 
and  its  tribunals,  and  could  pass  decrees.  In  it,  as  well 
as  in  the  family,  there  was  a  god,  a  priesthood,  a  legal 
tribunal  and  a  government."  ^  The  religious  rites  of  tlie 
phratries  were  an  expansion  of  those  of  the  gentes  of 
which  it  was  composed.  It  is  in  these  directions  that 
attention  should  be  turned  in  order  to  understand  the 
religious  life  of  the  Greeks. 

Next  in  the  ascending  scale  of  organization  was  the 
tribe,  consisting  of  a  number  of  phratries,  each  composed 
of  gentes.  The  persons  in  each  phratry  were  of  the 
same  common  lineage,  and  spoke  the  same  dialect. 
Among  the  Athenians  as  before  stated  each  tribe  con- 
tained three  phratries,  which  gave  to  each  a  similar 
organization.  The  tribe  corresponds  with  the  Latin  tribe, 
and  also  with  those  of  the  American  aborigines,  an  inde- 
pendent dialect  for  each  tribe  being  necessary  to  render 

I    "The   Ancient  City,"  Small's  Trans.,  p.    157.     Boston,  Lee  & 
Shepard. 


248  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

the  analogy  with  the  latter  complete.  The  concentration 
of  such  Grecian  tribes  as  had  coalesced  into  a  people,  in 
a  small  area,  tended  to  repress  dialectical  variation,  which 
a  subsequent  written  language  and  literature  tended  still 
further  to  arrest.  Each  tribe  from  antecedent  habits, 
howerer,  was  more  or  less  localized  in  a  fixed  area, 
through  the  requirements  of  a  social  system  resting  on 
personal  relations.  It  seems  probable  that  each  tribe  had 
its  council  of  chiefs,  supreme  in  all  matters  relating  to  the 
tribe  exclusively.  But  since  the  functions  and  powers  of 
the  general  council  of  chiefs,  who  administered  the  gen- 
eral affairs  of  the  united  tribes,  were  allowed  to  fall  into 
obscurity,  it  would  not  be  expected  that  those  of  an 
inferior  and  subordinate  council  would  be  preserved.  If 
such  a  council  existed,  which  was  doubtless  the  fact  from 
its  necessity  under  their  social  system,  it  would  have  con- 
sisted of  the  chiefs  of  the  gentes. 

When  the  several  phratries  of  a  tribe  united  in  the 
commemoration  of  their  religious  observances  it  was  in 
their  higher  organic  constitution  as  a  tribe.  As  such, 
they  were  under  the  presidency,  as  we  find  it  expressed, 
of  a  phylo-basileus,  who  was  the  principal  chief  of  the 
tribe.  Whether  he  acted  as  their  commander  in  the  mil- 
itary service  I  am  unable  to  state.  He  possessed  priestly 
functions,  always  inherent  in  the  office  of  basileus,  and 
exercised  a  criminal  jurisdiction  in  cases  of  murder; 
whether  to  try  or  to  prosecute  a  murderer,  I  am  unable 
to  state.  The  priestly  and  judicial  functions  attached  to 
the  office  of  basileus  tend  to  explain  the  dignity  it  acquired 
in  the  legendary  and  heroic  periods.  But  the  absence 
of  civil  functions,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  of  the 
presence  of  which  we  have  no  satisfactory  evidence,  is  suf- 
ficient to  render  the  term  king,  so  constantly  employed 
in  history  as  the  equivalent  of  basileus,  a  misnomer. 
Among  the  Athenians  we  have  the  tribe-basileus,  where 
the  term  is  used  by  the  Greeks  themselves  as  legiti- 
mately as  when  applied  to  the  general  military  com- 
mander of  the  four  united  tribes.  When  each  is  described 
as  a  king  it  makes  the  solecism  of  four  tribes  each  under 
a  king  separately,  and  the  four  tribes  together  under 
another  king.     There  is  a  larger  amount  of  fictitious  roy- 


GKECIAN   PHRATllV,    TUIBE   AND   NATION  249 

alty  here  than  the  occasion  requires.  Moreover,  when 
we  know  that  the  institutions  of  the  Athenians  at  the 
time  were  essentially  democratical  it  becomes  a  carica- 
ture of  Grecian  society.  It  shows  the  propriety  of  re- 
turning to  simple  and  original  language,  using  the  term 
basileus  where  the  Greeks  used  it,  and  rejecting  king  as 
a  false  equivalent.  Monarchy  is  incompatible  with  gen- 
tilism,  for  the  reason  that  gentile  institutions  are  essen- 
tially democratical.  Every  gens,  phratry  and  tribe  was 
a  completely  organized  self-governing  body;  and  where 
several  tribes  coalesced  into  a  nation  the  resulting  gov- 
ernment would  be  constituted  in  harmony  with  the  prin- 
ciples animating  its  constituent  parts. 

The  fourth  and  ultimate  stage  of  organization  was  the 
nation  united  in  a  gentile  society.  Where  several  tribes, 
as  those  of  the  Athenians  and  the  Spartans,  coalesced 
into  one  people,  it  enlarged  the  society,  but  the  aggre- 
gate was  simply  a  more  complex  duplicate  of  a  tribe. 
The  tribes  took  the  same  place  in  the  nation  which  the 
phratries  held  in  the  tribe,  and  the  gentes  in  the  phratry. 
There  was  no  name  for  the  organism^  which  was  sim- 
ply a  society  (societas),  but  in  its  place  a  name  sprang 
up  for  the  people  or  nation.  In  Homer's  description  of 
the  forces  gathered  against  Troy,  specific  names  are 
given  to  these  nations,  where  such  existed,  as  Athenians, 
/Etolians,  Locrians;  but  in  other  cases  they  are  described 
by  the  name  of  the  city  or  country  from  which  they  came. 
The  ultimate  fact  is  thus  reached,  that  the  Greeks,  prior 
to  the  times  of  Lycurgus  and  Solon,  had  but  the  four 
stages  of  social  organization  (gens,  phratry.  tribe  and 
nation),  which  was  so  nearly  universal  in  ancient  society, 
and  which  has  been  shown  to  exist,  in  part,  in  the  Status 
of  savagery,  and  complete  in  the  Lower,  in  the  Middle 
and  in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  and  still  subsisting 
after  civilization  had  commenced.  This  organic  series 
expresses  the  extent  of  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  gov- 
ernment among  mankind  down  to  the  institution  of  polit- 
ical  societv.     Such   was   the   Grecian   social   svstem.     It 


1    Aristotle.   Thucydides,  and  other  writers,   use   the   term   bas- 
lleia    for  the  governments  of  tlie   heroic  period. 


256  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

gave  a  society,  made  up  of  a  series  of  aggregates  of  per- 
sons, with  whom  the  government  dealt  through  their 
personal  relations  to  a  gens,  phratry  or  tribe.  It  was 
also  a  gentile  societ}'  as  distinguished  from  a  political 
society,  from  which  it  was  fundamentally  dififerent  and 
easily  distinguishable. 

The  Athenian  nation  of  the  heroic  age  presents  in  its 
government  three  distinct,  and  in  some  sense  co-ordinate, 
departments  or  powers,  namely :  first,  the  council  of  chiefs^ 
second,  the  agora,  or  assembly  of  the  people ;  and  third, 
the  basileus,  or  general  military  commander.  Although 
municipal  and  subordinate  military  offices  in  large  num- 
bers had  been  created,  from  the  increasing  necessities  of 
their  condition,  the  principal  powers  of  the  government 
were  held  by  the  three  instrumentalities  named.  I  am 
unable  to  discuss  in  an  adequate  manner  the  functions 
and  powers  of  the  council,  the  agora  or,  the  basileus,  but 
will  content  myself  with  a  few  suggestions  upon  subjects 
grave  enough  to  deserve  re-investigation  at  the  hands  of 
professed  Hellenists. 

I.  The  Council  of  Chiefs.  The  office  of  basileus  in 
the  Grecian  tribes  has  attracted  far  more  attention  than 
either  the  council  or  the  agora.  As  a  consequence  it  ha'a 
been  unduly  magnified  while  the  council  and  the  agora 
have  either  been  depreciated  or  ignored.  We  know, 
however,  that  the  council  of  chiefs  was  a  constant  phe- 
nomenon in  every  Grecian  nation  from  the  earliest  period 
to  which  our  knowledge  extends  down  to  the  institution 
of  political  society.  Its  permanence  as  a  feature  of  their 
social  system  is  conclusive  evidence  that  its  functions 
were  substantial,  and  that  its  powers,  at  least  presump- 
tively, were  ultimate  and  supreme.  This  presumption 
arises  from  what  is  known  of  the  archaic  character  and 
functions  of  the  coimcil  of  chiefs  under  gentile  institu- 
tions, and  from  its  vocation.  How  it  was  constituted 
in  the  heroic  age,  and  under  what  tenure  the  office  of 
chief  was  held,  we  are  not  clearly  informed ;  but  it  is  a 
reasonable  inference  that  the  council  was  composed  of 
the  chiefs  of  the  gentes.  Since  the  number  who  formed 
the  council  was  usually  less  than  the  number  of  gentes, 
a  selection  must  have  been  made  in  some  way  from  the 


GRECIAN   PHRATRY,   TRIBR  AND  NATION  251 

body  of  chiefs.  In  what  manner  the  selection  was  made 
we  are  not  informed.  The  vocation  of  the  council  as  a 
legislative  body  representing  the  principal  gentes,  and  its 
natural  growth  under  the  gentile  organization,  rendered 
it  supreme  in  the  first  instance,  and  makes  it  probable 
that  it  remained  so  to  the  end  of  its  existence.  The  in- 
creasing importance  of  the  office  of  basileus,  and  the 
new  offices  created  in  their  military  and  municipal  affairs 
with  their  increase  in  numbers  and  in  wealth,  would 
change  somewhat  the  relations  of  the  council  to  public 
affairs,  and  perhaps  diminish  its  importance ;  but  it  could 
not  be  overthrown  without  a  radical  change  of  institu- 
tions. It  seems  probable,  therefore,  that  every  office  of 
the  government,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  re- 
mained accountable  to  the  council  for  their  official  acts. 
The  council  was  fundamental  in  their  social  system ;' 
and  the  Greeks  of  the  period  were  free  self-governmg 
peoples,  under  institutions  essentially  democratical.  A 
single  illustration  of  the  existence  of  the  council  may  be 
given  from  Aeschylus,  simply  to  show  that  in  the  Greek 
conception  it  was  always  present  and  ready  to  act.  In 
The  Sez'en  against  Thebes,  Eteocles  is  represented  in 
command  of  the  city,  and  his  brother  Polynices  as  one 
of  the  seven  chiefs  who  had  invested  the  place.  The 
assault  was  repelled,  but  the  brothers  fell  in  a  personal 
combat  at  one  of  the  gates.  After  this  occurrence  a  her- 
ald says :  "It  is  necessary  for  me  to  announce  the  decree 
and  good  pleasure  of  the  councilors  of  the  people  of  this 
city  of  Cadmus,  It  is  resolved,"^  etc.  A  council  which 
can  make  and  promulgate  a  decree  at  any  moment,  which 
the  people  are  expected  to  obey,  possesses  the  supreme 
powers  of  government.  Aeschylus,  although  dealing  in 
this  case  with  events  in  the  legendary  period,  recognizes 
the  council  of  chiefs  as  a  necessary  part  of  the  system 
of  government  of  every  Grecian  people.  The  boule  of 
ancient  Grecian  society  was  the  prototype  and  pattern 
of  the  senate  under  the  subsequent  political  system  of 
the  state. 

I   Dionysius,  2,  xii. 

»  Aeschylus,    "'The   Seven   against   Thebes,"   1005. 


252  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

II.  The  Agora.  Although  an  assembly  of  the  people 
became  established  in  the  legendary  period,  with  a  rec- 
ognized power  to  adopt  or  reject  public  measures  sub- 
mitted by  the  council,  it  is  not  as  ancient  as  the  council. 
The  latter  came  in  at  the  institution  of  the  gentes ;  but 
it  is  doubtful  whether  the  agora  existed,  with  the  func- 
tions named,  back  of  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism.  It 
has  been  shown  that  among  the  Iroquois,  in  the  Lower 
Status,  the  people  presented  their  wishes  to  the  council 
of  chiefs  through  orators  of  their  own  selection,  and  that 
a  popular  influence  was  felt  in  the  affairs  of  the  confed- 
eracy ;  but  an  assembly  of  the  people,  with  the  right  to 
adopt  or  reject  public  measures,  would  evince  an  amount 
of  progress  in  intelligence  and  knowledge  beyond  the 
Iroquois.  When  the  agora  first  appears,  as  represented 
in  Homer,  and  in  the  Greek  Tragedies,  it  had  th^  same 
characteristics  which  it  afterwards  maintained  in  the 
ecclesia  of  the  Athenians,  and  in  the  comitia  cur'ata  of 
the  Romans.  It  was  the  prerogative  of  the  cot"\cil  of 
chiefs  to  mature  public  measures,  and  then  submf*-  them 
to  the  assembly  of  the  people  for  acceptance  or  rej'*ction, 
and  their  decision  was  final.  The  functions  of  the  agora 
were  limited  to  this  single  act.  It  could  neither  origi- 
nate measures,  nor  interfere  in  the  adm.inistration  of 
affairs ;  but  nevertheless  it  was  a  substantial  power,  emi- 
nently adapted  to  the  protection  of  their  liberties.  In 
the  heroic  age  certainly,  and  far  back  in  the  legendary 
period,  the  agora  is  a  constant  phenomenon  among  the 
Grecian  tribes,  and,  in  connection  with  the  council,  is 
conclusive  evidence  of  the  democratical  constitution  of 
gentile  society  throughout  these  periods.  A  public  sen- 
timent, as  we  have  reason  to  suppose,  was  created  among 
the  people  on  all  important  questions,  through  the  exer- 
cise of  their  intelligence,  which  the  council  of  chiefs 
found  it  desirable  as  well  as  necessary  to  consult,  both 
for  the  public  good  and  for  the  maintenance  of  their  own 
authority.  After  hearing  the  submitted  question  dis- 
cussed, the  assembly  of  the  people,  which  was  free  to  all 
who  desired   to   speak,  ^  made  their  decision   in   ancient 

I  Euripides,  "Orestes,"  884. 


GRECIAN  PHRATRT,  TRIBE  AND  NATION  253 

times  usually  by  a  show  of  hands.  ^  Through  participa- 
tion in  public  affairs,  which  affected  the  interests  of  all, 
the  people  were  constantly  learning  the  art  of  self-gov- 
ernment, and  a  portion  of  them,  as  the  Athenians,  were 
preparing  themselves  for  the  full  democracy  subsequently 
established  by  the  constitutions  of  Cleisthenes.  The 
assembly  of  the  people  to  deliberate  upon  public  ques- 
tions, not  unfrequently  derided  as  a  mob  by  writers  who 
were  unable  to  understand  or  appreciate  the  principle  of 
democracy,  was  the  germ  of  the  ecclesia  of  the  Atheni- 
ans, and  of  the  lower  house  of  modern  legislative  bodies. 
III.  The  Bastleus.  This  officer  became  a  conspicu- 
ous character  in  the  Grecian  society  of  the  heroic  age, 
and  was  equally  prominent  in  the  legendary  period.  He 
has  been  placed  by  historians  in  the  centre  of  the  system. 
The  name  of  the  office  was  used  by  the  best  Grecian 
writers  to  characterize  the  government,  which  was  styled 
a  basileia.  Modern  writers,  almost  without  exception, 
translate  basileus  by  the  term  king,  and  basileia  by  the  term 
kingdom,  without  qualification,  and  as  exact  equivalents, 
I  wish  to  call  attention  to  this  office  of  basileus,  as  it 
existed  in  the  Grecian  tribes,  and  to  question  the  correct- 
ness of  this  interpretation.  There  is  no  similarity  what- 
ever between  the  basileia  of  the  ancient  Athenians  and 
the  modern  kingdom  or  monarchy :  certainly  not  enough 
to  justify  the  use  of  the  same  term  to  describe  both.  Our 
idea  of  a  kingly  government  is  essentially  of  a  type  in 
which  a  king,  surrounded  by  a  privileged  and  titled 
class  in  the  ownership  and  possession  of  the  lands,  rules 
according  to  his  own  will  and  pleasure  by  edicts  and 
decrees ;  claiming  an  hereditary  right  to  rule,  because  he 
cannot  allege  the  consent  of  the  governed.  Such  govern- 
ments have  been  self-imposed  through  the  principle  of 
hereditary  right,  to  which  the  priesthood  have  sought  to 
superadd  a  divine  right.  The  Tudor  kings  of  England 
and  the  Bourbon  kings  of  France  are  illustrations.  Con- 
stitutional monarchy  is  a  modern  development,  and  essen- 
tially different  from  the  basileia  of  the  Greeks.  The 
basileia  was  neither  an  absolute  nor  a  constitutional  mon- 

1  Aeschylus,   "The  Suppliants,"  607. 


284  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

archy;  neither  was  it  a  tyranny  or  a  despotism.     The 
question  then  is,  what  was  it. 

Mr.  Grote  claims  that  "the  primitive  Grecian  govern- 
ment is  essentially  monarchical,  reposing  on  personal  feel- 
ing and  divine  right ;" '  and  to  confirm  this  view  he  re- 
marks further,  that  "the  memorable  dictum  in  the  Iliad 
is  borne  out  by  all  that  we  hear  in  actual  practice :  'the 
rule  of  many  is  not  a  good  thing;  let  us  have  one  ruler 
only  —  one  king  —  him  to  whom  Zeus  has  given  the 
sceptre,  with  the  tutelary  sanctions.'  "  ^  This  opinion  is 
not  peculiar  to  Mr.  Grote,  whose  eminence  as  a  historian 
all  delight  to  recognize ;  but  it  has  been  steadily  and  gen- 
erally affirmed  by  historical  writers  on  Grecian  themes, 
until  it  has  come  to  be  accepted  as  historical  truth.  Our 
views  upon  Grecian  and  Roman  questions  have  been 
moulded  by  writers  accustomed  to  monarchical  govern- 
ment and  privileged  classes,  who  were  perhaps  glad  to 
appeal  to  the  earliest  known  governments  of  the  Grecian 
tribes  for  a  sanction  of  this  form  of  government,  as  at 
once  natural,  essential  and  primitive. 

The  true  statement,  as  it  seems  to  an  American,  is 
precisely  the  reverse  of  Mr.  Grote's ;  namely,  that  the 
primitive  Grecian  government  was  essentially  democrat- 
ical,  reposing  on  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes,  organized 
as  self-governing  bodies,  and  on  the  principles  of  liberty, 
equality  and  fraternity.  This  is  borne  out  by  all  we  know 
of  the  gentile  organization,  which  has  been  shown  to  rest 
on  principles  essentially  democratical.  The  question 
then  is,  whether  the  office  of  basileus  passed  in  reality 
from  father  to  son  by  hereditary  right ;  which,  if  true, 
would  tend  to  show  a  subversion  of  these  principles.  We 
have  seen  that  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism  the. 
office  of  chief  was  hereditary  in  a  gens,  by  which  is  meant 
that  the  vacancy  was  filled  from  the  members  of  the  gens 
as  often  as  it  occurred.  Where  descent  was  in  the  fe- 
male line,  as  among  the  Iroquois,  an  own  brother  was 
usually  selected  to  succeed  the  deceased  chief,  and  where 
descent  was  in  the  male  line,  as  among  the  Ojibwas  and 

I  "History  of  Greece,"  II,  69. 

»  "History  ot  Greece,"  11,  69,  and  "Iliad,"  11,  204. 


GRECIAN  PHRATRT,   TRIBE  AND  NATION  256 

Omahas,  the  oldest  son.  In  the  absence  of  objections  to 
the  person  such  became  the  rule ;  but  the  elective  princi- 
ple remained,  which  was  the  essence  of  self-government. 
It  cannot  be  claimed,  on  satisfactory  proof,  that  the  old- 
est son  of  the  basileus  took  the  office,  upon  the  demise 
of  his  father,  by  absolute  hereditary  right.  This  is  the 
essential  fact ;  and  it  requires  conclusive  proof  for  its 
establishment.  The  fact  that  the  oldest,  or  one  of  the 
sons,  usually  succeeded,  which  is  admitted,  does  not 
establish  the  fact  in  question :  because  by  usage  he  was 
in  the  probable  line  of  succession  by  a  free  election  from 
a  constituency.  The  presumption,  on  the  face  of  Grecian 
institutions,  is  against  succession  to  the  office  of  basileus 
by  hereditary  right ;  and  in  favor  either  of  a  free  election, 
or  of  a  confirmation  of  the  office  by  the  people  through 
their  recognized  organizations,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Roman  rex.  ^  With  the  office  of  basileus  transmitted  in 
the  manner  last  named,  the  government  would  remain 
in  the  hands  of  the  people.  Because  without  an  elec- 
tion or  confirmation  he  could  not  assume  the  office ;  and 
because  further,  the  power  to  elect  or  confirm  implies 
the  reserved  right  to  depose. 

The  illustration  of  Mr.  Grote,  drawn  from  the  Iliad, 
is  without  significance  on  the  question  made.  Ulysses, 
from  whose  address  the  quotation  is  taken,  was  speak- 
ing of  the  command  of  an  army  before  a  besieged  city. 
He  might  well  say :  "All  the  Greeks  cannot  by  any  means 
rule  here.  The  rule  of  many  is  not  a  good  thing.  Let 
us  have  one  koiranos,  one  basileus,  to  whom  Zeus  has 
given  the  sceptre,  and  the  divine  sanctions  in  order  that 
he  may  command  us."  Koiranos  and  basileus  are  used 
as  equivalents,  because  both  alike  signified  a  general  mil- 
itary commander.  There  was  no  occasion  for  Ulvsses 
to  discuss  or  endorse  any  plan  of  government ;  but  he 
had  sufficient  reasons  for  advocating  obedience  to  a  sin- 
gle commander  of  the  army  before  a  besieged  city. 

I  Mr.  Gladstone,  who  presents  to  his  readers  the  Grecian 
chiefs  of  the  heroic  age  as  kinprs  and  princes,  with  the  superad- 
ded qualities  of  gentlemen,  is  forced  to  admit  that  "on  the 
whole  we  seem  to  have  the  ctistom  or  law  of  primogeniture 
sufficiently,  hut  not  oversharply  defined."— "Juventus  Mundl," 
Little  &  Brown's  ed.,  p.  428. 


258  ANCIENT  SOCIBTT 

Basileia  may  be  defined  as  a  military  democracy,  the 
people  being  free,  and  the  spirit  of  the  g-overnment, 
which  is  the  essential  thing,  being  democratical.  The 
basileus  was  their  general,  holding  the  highest,  the  most 
influential  and  the  most  important  office  known  to  their 
social  system.  For  the  want  of  a  better  term  to  describe 
the  government,  basileia  was  adopted  by  Grecian  writers, 
because  it  carried  the  idea  of  a  generalship  which  had 
then  become  a  conspicuous  feature  in  the  government. 
With  the  council  and  the  agora  both  existing  with  the 
basileus,  if  a  more  special  definition  of  this  form  of  gov- 
ernment is  required,  military  democracy  expresses  it 
with  at  least  reasonable  correctness ;  while  the  use  of 
the  term  kingdom,  with  the  meaning  it  necessarily  con- 
veys, would  be  a  misnomer. 

In  the  heroic  age  the  Grecian  tribes  were  living  in 
walled  cities,  and  were  becoming  numerous  and  wealthy 
through  field  agriculture,  manufacturing  industries,  and 
flocks  and  herds.  New  offices  were  required,  as  well  as 
some  degree  of  separation  of  their  functions ;  and  a  new 
municipal  system  was  growing  up  apace  with  their  in- 
creasing intelligence  and  necessities.  It  was  also  a  per- 
iod of  incessant  military  strife  for  the  possession  of  the 
most  desirable  areas.  Along  with  the  increase  of  prop- 
erty the  aristocratic  element  in  society  undoubtedly  in- 
creased, and  was  the  chief  cause  of  those  disturbances 
which  prevailed  in  Athenian  society  from  the  time  of 
Theseus  to  the  times  of  Solon  and  Cleisthenes.  During 
this  period,  and  until  the  final  abolition  of  the  office  some 
time  before  the  first  Olympiad,  (776  B.  C.)  the  basileus, 
from  the  character  of  his  office  and  from  the  state  of  the 
times,  became  more  prominent  and  more  powerful  than 
any  single  person  in  their  previous  experience.  The 
functions  of  a  priest  and  of  a  judge  were  attached  to  or 
inherent  in  his  office ;  and  he  seems  to  have  been  ex  offi- 
cio a  member  of  the  council  of  chiefs.  It  was  a  great 
as  well  as  a  necessary  office,  with  the  powers  of  a  gen- 
eral over  the  army  in  the  field,  and  over  the  garrison  in 
the  city,  which  gave  him  the  means  of  acquiring  influ- 
ence in  civil  affairs  as  well.     But  it  does  not  appear  that 


GRECIAN  PHRATRY,   TRIBE  AND  NATION  251 

he  possessed  civil  functions.  Prof,  Mason  remarks,  that 
"our  information  respecting  the  Grecian  kings  in  the 
more  historical  age  is  not  ample  or  minute  enough  to 
enable  us  to  draw  out  a  detailed  scheme  of  their  func- 
tions."* The  military  and  priestly  functions  of  the 
basileus  are  tolerably  well  understood,  the  judicial  im- 
perfectly, and  the  civil  functions  cannot  properly  be  said 
to  have  existed.  The  powers  of  such  an  office  under  gen- 
tile institutions  would  gradually  become  defined  by  the 
usage  of  experience,  but  with  a  constant  tendency  in 
the  basileus  to  assume  new  ones  dangerous  to  society. 
Since  the  council  of  chiefs  remained  as  a  constituent  ele- 
ment of  the  government,  it  may  be  said  to  have  repre- 
sented the  democratic  principles  of  their  social  system, 
as  well  as  the  gentes,  wdiile  the  basileus  soon  came  to 
represent  the  aristocratic  principle.  It  is  probable  that  a 
perpetual  struggle  was  maintained  between  the  council 
and  the  basileus,  to  hold  the  latter  within  the  limits  of 
powers  the  people  were  willing  to  concede  to  the  office. 
Moreover,  the  abolition  of  the  office  by  the  Athenians 
makes  it  probable  that  they  found  the  office  unmanage- 
able, and  incompatible  with  gentile  institutions,  from  the 
tendency  to  usurp  additional  powers. 

Among  the  Spartan  tribes  the  ephoralty  was  instituted 
at  a  very  early  period  to  limit  the  powers  of  the  basileus 
in  consequence  of  a  similar  experience.  Although  the 
functions  of  the  council  in  the  Homeric  and  the  legend- 
ary periods  are  not  accurately  known,  its  constant  pres- 
ence is  evidence  sufficient  that  its  powers  were  real,  es- 
sential and  permanent.  With  the  simultaneous  existence 
of  the  agora,  and  in  the  absence  of  proof  of  a  change  of 
institutions,  we  are  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  council, 
under  established  usages,  was  supreme  over  gentes, 
phratries,  tribes  and  nation,  and  that  the  basileus  was 
amenable  to  this  council  for  his  official  acts.  The  free- 
dom of  the  gentes,  of  whom  the  members  of  the  council 
were  representatives,  presupposes  the  independence  of 
the -council,  as  well  as  its  supremacy. 

I   Smith's  "Die,  Art.  Rex."  p.  991. 


358  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

Thucydides  refers  incidentally  to  the  governments  of 
the  traditionary  period,  as  follows :  "Xow  when  the 
Greeks  were  becoming  more  powerful,  and  acquiring 
possession  of  property  still  more  than  before,  many  tyr- 
annies were  established  in  the  cities,  from  their  revenues 
becoming  greater;  whereas  before  there  had  been  hered- 
itary basileia  with  specified  powers."^  The  office  was 
hereditary  in  the  sense  of  perpetual  because  it  was  filled 
as  often  as  a  vacancy  occurred,  but  probably  hered- 
itary in  a  gens,  the  choice  being  by  a  free  election  by  his 
gennetes,  or  by  nomination  possibly  by  the  council,'  and 
confirmation  by  the  gentes,  as  in  the  case  of  the  rex  of 
the  Romans. 

Aristotle  has  given  the  most  satisfactory  definition  of 
the  basileia  and  of  the  basileus  of  the  heroic  period  of 
any  of  the  Grecian  writers.  These  then  are  the  four 
kinds  of  basileia  he  remarks  :  the  first  is  that  of  the  heroic 
times,  which  was  a  government  over  a  free  people,  with 
restricted  rights  in  some  particulars ;  for  the  basileus  was 
their  general,  their  judge  and  their  chief  priest.  The 
second,  that  of  the  barbarians  which  is  an  hereditary 
despotic  government,  regulated  by  laws ;  the  third  is  that 
which  they  call  Aesymnetic.  which  is  an  elective  tvranny. 
The  fourth  is  the  Lacedaemonian,  which  is  nothing  more 
than  an  hereditary  generalship.  ^  Whatever  may  be  said 
of  the  last  three  forms,  the  first  does  not  answer  to  the 
idea  of  a  kingdom  of  the  absolute  type,  nor  to  any  rec- 
ognizable form  of  monarchy.  Aristotle  enumerates  with 
striking  clearness  the  principal  functions  of  the  basileus, 
neither  of  which  imply  civil  powers,  and  all  of  which 
are  consistent  with  an  office  for  life,  held  by  an  elective 
tenure.  They  are  also  consistent  with  his  entire  subor- 
dination to  the  council  of  chiefs.  The  "restricted  rights," 
and  the  "specified  powers"  in  the  def-nitions  of  these  au- 
thors, tend  to  show  that  the  government  had  grown  into 
this  form  in  harmony  with,  as  well  as  under,  gentile  in- 
stitutions. The  essential  element  in  the  definition  of 
Aristotle  is  the  freedom  of  the  people,  which  in  ancient 

I   "Thucydides."  1.  13. 
,    7      Aristotle.  "Politics,"  ill,  c.  x. 


GRECIAN  PHRATRY,   TRIBE  AND   NATION  25d 

society  implies  that  the  people  held  the  powers  of  the  gov- 
ernment under  their  control,  that  the  office  of  basileus 
was  voluntarily  bestowed,  and  that  it  could  be  recalled 
for  sufficient  cause.  Such  a  government  as  that  de- 
scribed by  Aristotle  can  be  understood  as  a  military  de- 
mocracy, which,  as  a  form  of  government  under  free  in- 
stitutions, grew  naturally  out  of  the  gentile  organization 
when  the  military  spirit  was  dominant,  when  wealth  and 
numbers  appeared,  with  habitual  life  in  fortified  cities, 
and  before  experience  had  prepared  the  way  for  a  pure 
democracy. 

Under  gentile  institutions,  wath  a  people  composed  of 
gentes,  phratries  and  tribes,  each  organized  as  independ- 
ent self-governing  bodies,  the  people  would  necessarily 
be  free.  The  rule  of  a  king  by  hereditary  right  and  with- 
out direct  accountability  in  such  a  society  was  simply  im- 
possible. The  impossibility  arises  from  the  fact  that 
gentile  institutions  are  incompatible  with  a  king  or  wnth 
a  kingly  government.  It  would  require,  what  I  think 
cannot  be  furnished,  positive  proof  of  absolute  heredi- 
tary right  in  the  office  of  basileus,  with  the  presence  of 
civil  functions,  to  overcome  the  presumption  wdiich  arises 
from  the  structure  and  principles  of  ancient  Grecian  so- 
ciety. An  Englishman,  under  his  constitutional  mon- 
archv,  is  as  free  as  an  American  under  the  republic,  and 
his  rights  and  liberties  are  as  well  protected ;  but  he  owes 
that  freedom  and  protection  to  a  body  of  written  laws, 
created  bv  legislation  and  enforced  by  courts  of  justice. 
In  ancient  Grecian  society,  usages  and  customs  supplied 
the  place  of  written  laws,  and  the  person  depended  for 
his  freedom  and  protection  upon  the  institutions  of  his 
social  system.  His  safeguard  was  pre-eminently  in  such 
institutions  as  the  elective  tenure  of  office  implies. 

The  reges  of  the  Romans  were,  in  like  manner,  mili- 
tary commanders,  with  priestlv  functions  attached  to 
their  office :  and  this  so-called  kingly  government  falls 
into  the  same  category  of  a  military  democracy.  The  rex, 
as  before  stated,  was  nominated  by  the  senate,  and  con- 
firmed by  the  comitia  curiata;  and  the  last  of  the  num- 
ber was  deposed.     With  his  deposition    the    office    was 


260  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

abolished,  as  incompatible  v/ith  what  remained  of  ttie 
democratic  principle,  after  the  institution  of  Roman 
political  society. 

The  nearest  analogues  of  kingdoms  among  the  Gre- 
cian tribes  were  the  tyrannies,  which  sprang  up  here  and 
there,  in  the  early  period,  in  different  parts  of  Greece. 
They  were  governments  imposed  by  force,  and  the  power 
claimed  was  no  greater  than  that  of  the  feudal  kings  of 
mediaeval  times,  A  transmission  of  the,  office  from  father 
to  son  through  a  few  generations  in  order  to  superadd 
hereditary  right  was  needed  to  complete  the  analogy. 
But  such  governments  were  so  inconsistent  W'ith  Grecian 
ideas,  and  so  alien  to  their  democratic  institutions,  that 
none  of  them  obtained  a  permanent  footing  in  Greece. 
Mr.  Grote  remarks  that  "if  any  energetic  man  could  by 
audacity  or  craft  break  down  the  constitution  and  render 
himself  permanent  ruler  according  to  his  own  will  and 
pleasure  —  even  though  he  might  rule  well  —  he  could 
never  inspire  the  people  with  any  sentiment  of  duty  to- 
wards him.  His  sceptre  was  illegitimate  from  the  be- 
ginning, and  even  the  taking  of  his  life,  far  from  being 
interdicted  by  that  moral  feeling  which  condemned  the 
shedder  of  blood  in  other  cases,  was  considered  meri- 
torious." *  It  was  not  so  much  the  illegitimate  sceptre 
which  aroused  the  hostility  of  the  Greeks,  as  the  antag- 
onism of  democratical  with  monarchical  ideas,  the  former 
of  which  w^ere  inherited  from  the  gentes. 

When  the  Athenians  established  the  new  political  sys- 
tem, founded  upon  territory  and  upon  property,  the  gov- 
ernment was  a  pure  democracy.  It  was  no  new  theory, 
or  special  invention  of  the  Athenian  mind,  but  an  old 
and  familiar  system,  with  an  antiquity  as  great  as  that 
of  the  gentes  themselves.  Democratic  ideas  had  existed 
in  the  knowledge  and  practice  of  their  forefathers  from 
time  immemorial,  and  now  found  expression  in  a  more 
elaborate,  and  in  many  respects,  in  an  improved  govern- 
ment. The  false  element,  that  of  aristocracy,  which  had 
penetrated  the  system  and  created  much  of  the  strife  in 

I    "History  of  Greece,"  li,  61,  and  see  69. 


GRECIAN   PHRATRY,   TRIBE  AND   NATION  261' 

the  transitional  period  connected  itself  with  the  office  of 
basileus,  and  remained  after  this  office  was  abolished ; 
but  the  new  system  accomplished  its  overthrow.  More 
successfully  than  the  remaining  Grecian  tribes,  the 
Athenians  were  able  to  carry  forward  their  ideas  of  gov- 
ernment to  their  logical  result.  It  is  one  reason  why 
they  became,  for  their  numbers,  the  most  distinguished, 
the  most  intellectual  and  the  most  accomplished  race  of 
men  the  entire  human  family  has  yet  produced.  In  purely 
intellectual  achievements  they  are  still  the  astonishment 
of  mankind.  It  was  because  the  ideas  which  had  been 
germinating  through  the  previous  ethnical  period,  and 
which  had  become  interwoven  with  every  fibre  of  their 
brains,  had  found  a  happy  fruition  in  a  democratically 
constituted  state.  Under  its  life-giving  impulses  their 
highest  mental  development  occurred. 

The  plan  of  government  instituted  by  Cleisthenes  re- 
jected the  office  of  a  chief  executive  magistrate,  while  it 
retained  the  council  of  chiefs  in  an  elective  senate,  and 
the  agora  in  the  popular  assembly.  It  is  evident  that  the 
council,  tlie  agora  and  the  basileus  of  the  gentes  were  the 
germs  of  the  senate,  the  popular  assembly,  and  the  chief 
executive  magistrate  (king,  emperor  and  president)  of 
modern  political  society.  The  latter  office  sprang  from 
the  military  necessities  of  organized  society,  and  its  de- 
velopment with  the  upward  progress  of  mankind  is  in- 
structive. It  can  be  traced  from  the  common  w^ar-chief, 
first  to  the  Great  War  Soldier,  as  in  the  Iroquois  Con- 
federacy ;  secondly,  to  the  same  military  commander  in 
a  confederacy  of  tribes  more  advanced,  with  the  func- 
tions of  a  priest  attached  to  the  office,  as  the  Teuctli  of 
the  Aztec  Confederacy ;  thirdly,  to  the  same  military  com- 
mander in  a  nation  formed  by  a  coalescence  of  tribes, 
with  the  functions  of  a  priest  and  of  a  judge  attached  to 
the  office,  as  in  the  basileus  of  the  Greeks ;  and  finally,  to 
the  chief  magistrate  in  modern  political  society.  The 
elective  archon  of  the  Athenians,  who  succeeded  the  ba- 
sileus, and  the  president  of  modern  republics,  from  the 
elective  tenure  of  the  office,  were  the  natural  outcome  of 
gentilism.    We  are  indebted  to  the  experience  of  barbar- 


262  ANCIENT*  SOCiEtIr 

ians  for  instituting  and  developing  the  three  principal  in- 
strumentalities of  government  now  so  generally  incorpo- 
rated in  the  plan  of  government  in  civilized  states.  The 
human  mind,  specifically  the  same  in  all  individuals  in 
all  the  tribes  and  nations  of  mankind,  and  limited  in  the 
range  of  its  powers,  works  and  must  work,  in  the  same 
uniform  channels,  and  within  narrow  limits  of  variation. 
Its  results  in  disconnected  regions  of  space,  and  in  wide- 
ly separated  ages  of  time,  articulate  in  a  logically  con- 
nected chain  of  common  experiences.  In  the  grand  ag- 
gregate may  still  be  recognized  the  few  primary  germs 
of  thought,  working  upon  primary  human  necessities, 
which,  through  the  natural  process  of  development,  have 
produced  such  vast  results. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE   INSTITUTION   OF  GRECIAN    POLITICAL   SOCIETY 

The  several  Grecian  communities  passed  through  a 
substantially  similar  experience  in  transferring  them- 
selves from  gentile  into  political  society ;  but  the  mode 
of  transition  can  be  best  illustrated  from  Athenian  his- 
tory, because  the  facts  with  respect  to  the  Athenians  are 
more  fully  preserved.  A  bare  outline  of  the  material 
events  will  answer  the  object  in  view,  as  it  is  not  pro- 
posed to  follow  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  government 
beyond  the  inauguration  of  the  new  political  system. 

It  is  evident  that  the  failure  of  gentile  institutions  to 
meet  the  now  complicated  wants  of  society  originated 
the  movement  to  withdraw  all  civil  powers  from 
the  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes,  and  re-invest  them  in 
new  constituencies.  This  movement  was  gradual,  ex- 
tending through  a  long  period  of  time,  and  was  embodied 
in  a  series  of  successive  experiments  by  means  of  which 
a  remedy  was  sought  for  existing  evils.  The  coming  in 
of  the  new  system  was  as  gradual  as  the  going  out  of 
the  old.  the  two  for  a  part  of  the  time  existing  side  by 
side.  In  the  character  and  objects  of  the  experiments 
tried  we  may  discover  wherein  the  gentile  organization 
had  failed  to  meet  the  requirements  of  society,  the  neces- 
sity for  the  subversion  of  the  gentes,  jihratries  and  tribes 
as  sources  of  power,  and  the  means  bv  which  it  was  ac- 
complished. 

Looking  backward  upon  the  line  of  human  progress, 
it  mav  be  remarked  that  the  stockaded  village  was  the 
usual  home  of  the  tribe  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbar- 
ism.    In    the  Middle  Status    joint-tenement    houses    of 


304  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

adobe-bricks  and  of  stone,  in  the  nature  of  fortresses, 
make  their  appearance.  But  in  the  Upper  Status,  cities 
surrounded  with  ring  embankments,  and  finally  with 
walls  of  dressed  stone,  appear  for  the  first  time  in  human 
experience.  It  was  a  great  step  forward  when  the  thought 
found  expression  in  action  of  surrounding  an  area  ample 
for  a  considerable  population  with  a  defensive  wall  of 
dressed  stone,  with  towers,  parapets  and  gates,  designed 
to  protect  all  alike  and  to  be  defended  by  the  common 
strength.  Cities  of  this  grade  imply  the  existence  of  a 
stable  and  developed  field  agriculture,  the  possession  of 
domestic  animals  in  flocks  and  herds,  of  merchandise  in 
masses  and  of  property  in  houses  and  lands.  The  city 
brought  with  it  new  demands  in  the  art  of  government 
by  creating  a  changed  condition  of  society.  A  necessity 
gradually  arose  for  magistrates  and  judges,  military  and 
municipal  officers  of  different  grades,  with  a  mode  of 
raising  and  supporting  military  levies  which  would  re- 
quire public  revenues.  Municipal  life  and  wants  must 
have  greatly  augmented  the  duties  and  responsibilities 
of  the  council  of  chiefs,  and  perhaps  have  overtaxed  its 
capacity  to  govern. 

It  has  been  shown  that  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbar- 
ism the  government  was  of  one  power,  the  council  of 
chiefs;  that  in  the  Middle  Status  it  was  of  two  powers, 
the  council  of  chiefs  and  the  military  commander ;  and 
that  in  the  Upper  Status  it  was  of  three  powers,  the  coun- 
cil of  chiefs,  the  assembly  of  the  people  and  the  military 
commander.  But  after  the  commencement  of  civilization, 
the  differentiation  of  the  powers  of  the  government  had 
proceeded  still  further.  The  military  power,  first  devol- 
ved upon  the  basileus,  was  now  exercised  by  generals 
and  captains  under  greater  restrictions.  By  a  further 
differentiation  the  judicial  power  had  now  appeared 
among  the  Athenians.  It  was  exercised  by  the  archons 
and  dicasts.  Magisterial  powers  were  now  being  devol- 
ved upon  municipal  magistrates.  Step  by  step,  and 
with  the  progress  of  experience  and  advancement,  these 
several  [)owers  had  been  taken  by  differentiation  from 
the  sum  of  the  powers  of  the  original  council  of  chiefs, 


INSTITUTION  OP  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY       265 

SO  far  as  they  could  be  said  to  have  passed  from  the  peo- 
ple into  this  council  as  a  representative  bodv. 

The  creation  of  these  municipal  offices  was  a  neces- 
sary consequence  of  the  increasing-  magnitude  and  com- 
plexity of  their  affairs.  Under  the  increased  burden 
gentile  institutions  were  breaking  down.  Unnumbered 
disorders  existed,  both  from  the  conflict  of  authority,  and 
from  the  abuse  of  powers  not  as  yet  well  defined.  The 
brief  and  masterly  sketch  by  Thucydides  of  the  condition 
of  the  Grecian  tribes  in  the  transitional  period,'  and  the 
concurrent  testimony  of  other  writers  to  the  same  eft'ect, 
leave  no  doubt  that  the  old  system  of  government  was 
failing,  and  that  a  new  one  had  become  essential  to  fur- 
ther progress.  A  wider  distribution  of  the  powers  of 
the  government,  a  clearer  definition  of  them,  and  a 
stricter  accountability  of  official  persons  were  needed  for 
the  welfare  as  well  as  safety  of  society;  and  more  espe- 
cially the  substitution  of  written  laws,  enacted  by  com- 
petent authority,  in  the  place  of  usages  and  customs.  It 
was  through  the  experimental  knowledge  gained  in  this 
and  the  previous  ethnical  period  that  the  idea  of  polit- 
ical society  or  a  state  was  gradually  forming  in  the 
Grecian  mind.  It  was  a  growth  running  through  cen- 
turies of  time,  from  the  first  appearance  of  a  necessity 
for  a  change  in  the  plan  of  government,  before  the  en- 
tire result  was  realized. 

The  first  attempt  among  the  Athenians  to  subvert  the 
gentile  organization  and  establish  a  new  system  is 
ascribed  to  Theseus,  and  therefore  rests  upon  tradition ; 
but  certain  facts  remained  to  the  historical  period  which 
confirm  some  part  at  least  of  his  supposed  legislation.  It 
will  be  sufficient  to  regard  Theseus  as  representing  a 
period,  or  a  series  of  events.  From  the  time  of  Cecrops 
to  Theseus,  according  to  Thucydides,  the  Attic  people 
had  always  lived  in  cities,  having  their  own  pr)taneums 
and  archons,  and  when  not  in  fear  of  danger  did  not  con- 
sult their  basileus,  but  governed  their  own  affairs  sepa- 
rately according  to  their  own  councils.     But  when  The- 

I   "Thucydides,"  Hb.  1,  2-13. 


ttit  Ai^ClENT  SOCIETY 

seus  was  made  basileus,  he  persuaded  them  to  break  up 
the  council-houses  and  magistracies  of  their  several  cities 
and  come  into  relation  with  Athens,  with  one  council- 
house  (boulciiterios),  and  one  prytaneum,  to  which  all 
were  considered  as  belonging/  This  statement  embodies 
or  implies  a  number  of  important  facts ;  namely,  that 
the  Attic  population  were  organized  in  independent 
tribes,  each  having  its  own  territory  in  which  the  people 
were  localized,  with  its  own  council-house  and  prytane- 
um; and  that  while  they  were  self-governing  societies 
they  were  probably  confederated  for  mutual  protection, 
and  elected  their  basileus  or  general  to  command  their 
common  forces.  It  is  a  picture  of  communities  demo- 
cratically organized,  needing  a  military  commander  as 
a  necessity  of  their  condition,  but  not  invested  with  civil 
functions  which  their  gentile  system  excluded.  Under 
Theseus  they  were  brought  to  coalesce  into  one  people, 
with  Athens  as  their  seat  of  government,  which  gave 
them  a  higher  organization  than  before  they  had  been 
able  to  form.  The  coalescence  of  tribes  into  a  nation  in 
one  territory  is  later  in  time  than  confederations,  where 
the  tribes  occupy  independent  territories.  It  is  a  higher 
organic  process.  While  the  gentes  had  always  been  in- 
termingled by  marriage,  the  tribes  were  now  intermin- 
gled by  obliterating  territorial  lines,  and  by  the  use  of 
a  common  council-hall  and  prytaneum.  The  act  ascribed 
to  Theseus  explains  the  advancement  of  their  gentile  so- 
ciety from  a  lower  to  a  higher  organic  form,  which  must 
have  occurred  at  some  time,  and  probably  was  effected 
in  the  manner  stated. 

But  another  act  is  ascribed  to  Theseus  evincing  a  more 
radical  plan,  as  well  as  an  appreciation  of  the  necessity 
for  a  fundamental  change  in  the  plan  of  government.   He 

I  "Thucyd.,"  lib.  il,  c.  15.  Plutarch  speaks  nearly  to  the  same 
effect:  "He  settled  all  the  inhabitflnts  of  Attica  in  Athens,  and 
made  them  one  people  in  one  city,  who  before  were  scattered 
up  and  down,  and  could  witli  difficulty  be  assembled  on  any 
urgent  occasion  for  the  public  welfare.  .  .  .  Dissolving  therefore 
the  associations,  tlio  councils,  and  the  courts  in  each  particular 
town,  he  built  one  common  prytaneum  and  court  hall,  wiiere  It 
stands  to  this  day.  The  citadel  with  its  dependencies,  and  the 
city  or  the  old  and  new  town,  he  united  under  the  common 
name   of  Athens."— Plutarch.   "Vlt.   Theseus,"   cap.   24. 


Institution  of  Grecian  political  society      go? 

divided  the  people  into  three  classes,  irrespective  of 
gentes,  called  respectively  the  Eupatridae  or  "well-born" 
the  Geomori  or  "Husbandmen,"  and  the  Demiurgi  or 
"artisans."  The  principal  offices  were  assigned  to  the 
first  class  both  in  the  civil  administration  and  in  the 
priesthood.  This  classification  was  not  only  a  recogni- 
tion of  property  and  of  the  aristocratic  element  in  the 
government  of  society,  but  it  was  a  direct  movement 
against  the  governing  power  of  the  gentes.  It  was  the 
evident  intention  to  unite  the  chiefs  of  the  gentes  with 
their  families,  and  the  men  of  wealth  in  the  several 
gentes,  in  a  class  by  themselves,  with  the  right  to  hold 
the  principal  offices  in  which  the  powers  of  society  were 
vested.  The  seperation  of  the  remainder  into  two  great 
classes  traversed  the  gentes  again.  Important  results 
miglit  have  followed  if  the  voting  power  had  been  taken 
from  the  gentes,  phraties  and  tribes,  and  given  to  the 
classes,  subject  to  the  right  of  the  first  to  hold  principal 
offices.  This  does  not  appear  to  have  been  done 
although  absolutely  necessary  to  give  vitality  to  the 
classes.  Moreover,  it  did  not  change  essentially  the  . 
previous  order  of  things  with  respect  to  holding  office. 
Those  now  called  Eupatrids  were  probably  the  men  of  the 
several  gentes  who  had  previously  been  called  into 
office.  This  scheme  of  Theseus  died  out,  beca-use  there 
was  in  reality  no  transfer  of  powers  from  the  gentes, 
phratries  and  tribes  to  the  classes,  and  because  such 
classes  were  inferior  to  the  gentes  as  the  basis  of  a 
system. 

The  centurfes  that  elapsed  from  the  unknown  time  of 
Theseus  to  the  legislation  of  Solon  (594  B.  C.)  formed 
one  of  the  most  important  periods  in  Athenian  experi- 
ence ;  but  the  succession  of  events  is  imperfectly  known. 
The  office  of  basileus  was  abolished  prior  to  the  first 
Olympiad  (776  B.  C),  and  the  archonship  established  in 
its  place.  The  latter  seems  to  have  been  hereditary  in  a 
gens,  and  it  is  stated  to  have  been  hereditary  in  a  particular 
family  within  the  gens,  the  first  twelve  archons  being 
called  the  Medontidae  from  Medon,  the  first  archon, 
claimed  to  have  been  the  son  of  Codrus,  the  last  basileus. 


jt08  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

In  the  case  of  these  archons,  who  held  for  Ufe,  the  same 
question  exists  which  has  elsewhere  been  raised  with 
respect  to  the  basileus ;  that  an  election  or  confirmation  by 
a  constituency  was  necessary  before  the  office  could  be 
assumed.  The  presumption  is  against  the  transmission  of 
the  office  by  hereditary  right.  In  711  B.  C.  the  office  of 
archon  was  limited  to  ten  years,  and  bestowed  by  free 
election  upon  the  person  esteemed  most  worthy  of  the 
position.  We  are  now  within  the  historical  period,  though 
near  its  threshold,  where  we  meet  the  elective  principle 
with  respect  to  the  highest  office  in  the  gift  of  the  people 
clearly  and  completely  established.  It  is  precisely  what 
would  have  been  expected  from  the  constitution  and 
principles  of  the  gentes,  although  the  aristocratical  prin- 
ciple, as  we  must  suppose,  had  increased  in  force  with  the 
increase  of  property,  and  was  the  source  through  which 
hereditary  right  was  introduced  wherever  found.  The  ex- 
istence of  the  elective  principle  with  respect  to  the  later 
archons  is  not  without  significance  in  its  relation  to  the 
question  of  the  previous  practice  of  the  Athenians.  In  683 
B.  C.  the  office  was  made  elective  annually,  the  number 
was  increased  to  nine,  and  their  duties  were  made  min- 
isterial and  judicial.^  We  may  notice,  in  these  events, 
evidence  of  a  gradual  progress  in  knowledge  with  respect 
to  the  tenure  of  office.  The  Athenian  tribes  had  inherited 
from  their  remote  ancestors  the  office  of  archon  as  chief 
of  the  gens.  It  was  hereditary  in  the  gens  as  may  fairly  be 
supposed,  and  elective  among  its  members.  After  descent 
was  changed  to  the  male  line  the  sons  of  the  deceased 
chief  were  within  the  line  of  succession,  and  one  of  their 

1  "Of  the  nine  archons,  whose  number  continued  unaltered 
from  683  B.  C.  to  the  end  of  the  democracy,  three  bore  special 
titles— the  Archon  Eponymus,  from  whose  name  the  designation 
of  tlie  year  was  derived,  and  who  was  spoken  of  as  "the 
Archon,"  the  Archon  Basileus  (King),  or  more  frequently,  the 
Basileus;  and  the  Polemarch.    The  remaining  six  passed  by  the 

general  name   of  Thosmotliette The  Archon   Eponymus 

determined  all  disputes  relative  to  the  family,  the  gentile,  and 
the  phratrlc  relations:  he  was  the  legal  protector  of  orphans 
and  widows.  The  Archon  Basileus  (or  King  Archon)  enjoyed 
competence  In  complaints  respecting  offenses  against  the  reli- 
gious sentiment  and  respecting  homicide.  The  Polemarch 
(speaking  of  times  anterior  to  KleisthenPs)  was  the  leader  of 
military  force,  and  judge  In  disputes  between  citizens  and  non- 
cltlzens."— Grote's  "History  of  Greece,"  1.  c,  ill,  74. 


INSTITUTION  OF  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY        269 

number  would  be  apt  to  be  chosen '  in  the  absence  of 
personal  objections.  But  now  they  reverted  to  this 
original  office  for  the  name  of  their  highest  magistrate, 
made  it  elective  irrespective  of  any  gens,  and  limited  its 
duration,  first  to  ten  years  and  finally  to  one.  Prior  to 
this,  the  tenure  of  office  to  which  they  had  been  accus- 
tomed was  for  life.  In  the  Lower  and  also  in  the  Middle 
Status  of  barbarism  we  have  found  the  office  of  chief, 
elective  and  for  life ;  or  during  good  behavior,  for  this 
limitation  follows  from  the  right  of  the  gens  to  depose 
from  office.  It  is  a  reasonable  inference  that  the  office  of 
chief  in  a  Grecian  gens  was  held  by  a  free  election  and 
by  the  same  tenure.  It  must  be  regarded  as  proof  of  a 
remarkable  advancement  in  knowledge  at  this  early 
period  that  the  Athenian  tribes  substituted  a  term  of 
years  for  their  most  important  office,  and  allowed  a 
competition  of  candidates.  They  thus  worked  out  the 
entire  theory  of  an  elective  and  representative  office,  and 
placed  it  upon  its  true  basis. 

In  the  time  of  Solon,  it  may  be  further  noticed,  the 
Court  of  Areopagus,  composed  of  ex-archons,  had  come 
into  existence  with  power  to  try  criminals  and  with  a 
censorship  over  morals,  together  with  a  number  of  nev/ 
offices  in  the  military,  naval  and  administrative  services. 
But  the  most  important  event  that  occurred  about  this 
time  \vas  the  institution  of  the  naucrartes,  twelve  in  each 
tribe,  and  forty-eight  in  all :  each  of  which  was  a  local 
circumscription  of  householders  from  which  levies  were 
drawn  into  the  military  and  naval  service,  and  from 
which  taxes  were  probably  collected.  The  naucrary  was 
the  incipient  deme  or  township  which,  when  the  idea  of 
a  territorial  basis  was  fully  developed,  was  to  become  the 
foundation  of  the  second  great  plan  of  government.  By 
whom  the  naucraries  were  instituted  is  unknown.  "They 
must  have  existed  even  before  the  time  of  Solon," 
Boeckh  remarks,  "since  the  presiding  officers  of  the 
naucraries  are  mentioned  before  the  time  of  his  legisla- 
tion ;  and  when  Aristotle  ascribes  their  institution  to 
Solon,     we     may     refer     this    account    only    to     their 


STd  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

confirmation  by  tlTe  political  constitution  of  Solon,"  ^ 
Twelve  naucraries  formed  a  trittys,  a  larger  territorial 
circumscription,  but  they  were  not  necessarily  contiguous. 
It  was,  in  like  manner,  the  germ  of  the  county,  the  next 
territorial  aggregate  above  the  township. 

Notwithstanding  the  great  changes  that  had  occurred 
in  the  instrumentalities  by  which  the  government  was 
administered,  the  people  were  still  in  a  gentile  society, 
and  living  under  gentile  institutions.  The  gens,  phratry 
and  tribe  were  in  full  vitality,  and  the  recognized  sources 
of  power.  Before  the  time  of  Solon  no  person  could 
become  a  member  of  this  society  except  through  con- 
nection with  a  gens  and  tribe.  All  other  persons  were 
beyond  the  pale  of  the  government.  The  council  of 
chiefs  remained,  the  old  and  time-honored  instrument  of 
government ;  but  the  powers  of  the  government  were  now 
co-ordinated  between  itself,  the  agora  or  assembly  of  the 
people,  the  Court  of  Areopagus,  and  the  nine  archons.  It 
was  the  prerogative  of  the  council  to  originate  and 
mature  public  measures  for  submission  to  the  people, 
which  enabled  it  to  shape  the  policy  of  the  government. 
It  doubtless  had  the  general  administration  of  the 
finances,  and  it  remained  to  the  end,  as  it  had  been  from 
the  beginning,  the  central  feature  of  the  government. 
The  assembly  of  the  people  had  now  come  into  increased 
prominence.  Its  functions  were  still  limited  to  the  adop- 
tion or  rejection  of  public  measures  submitted  to  its 
decision  b}-  the  council ;  but  it  began  to  exercise  a  power- 
ful influence  upon  public  aflfairs.  The  rise  of  this 
assembly  as  a  power  in  the  government  is  the  surest 
evidence  of  the  progress  of  the  Athenian  people  in 
knowledge  and  intelligence.  Unfortunately  the  functions 
and  powers  of  the  council  of  chiefs  and  of  the  assembly 
of  the  people  in  this  early  period  have  been  imperfectly 
preserved,  and  but  partially  elucidated. 

In  624  R.  C.  Draco  had  framed  a  body  of  laws  for  the 
Athenians  which  were  chiefly  remarkable  for  their 
unnecessary  severity ;  but  this  code  demonstrated  that  the 

1    "Public     Economy     of    Athens,"     Lamb'.s     Trans.,     Little     A 
Brown's  ed.,  p.  353, 


INSTITUTION  OP  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY        271 

time  was  drawing  near  in  Grecian  experience  when 
usages  and  customs  were  to  be  superseded  by  written 
laws.  As  yet  the  Athenians  had  not  learned  the  art  of 
enacting  laws  as  the  necessity  for  them  appeared,  which 
required  a  higher  knowledge  of  the  functions  of  legis- 
lative bodies  than  they  had  attained.  They  were  in  that 
stage  in  which  lawgivers  appear,  and  legislation  is  in  a 
scheme  or  in  gross,  under  the  sanction  of  a  personal 
name.  Thus  slowlv  the  great  sequences  of  human  prog- 
ress unfold  themselves. 

When  Solon  came  into  the  archonship  (594  B.  C.)  the 
evils  prevalent  in  society  had  reached  an  unbearable 
degree.  The  struggle  for  the  possession  of  property,  now 
a  commanding  interest,  had  produced  singular  results. 
A  portion  of  the  Athenians  had  fallen  into  slavery, 
through  debt, — the  person  of  the  debtor  being  liable  to 
enslavement  in  default  of  payment ;  others  had  mort- 
gaged their  lands  and  were  unable  to  remove  the 
encumbrances^  and  as  a  consequence  of  these  and  other 
embarrassments  society  was  devouring  itself.  In  addition 
to  a  body  of  laws,  some,  of  them  novel,  but  corrective  of 
the  principal  financial  diflficulties,  Solon  renewed  the 
project  of  Theseus  of  organizing  society  into  classes,  not 
according  to  callings  as  before,  but  according  to  the 
amount  of  their  property.  It  is  instructive  to  follow  the 
course  of  these  experiments  to  supersede  the  gentes  and 
substitute  a  new  s}stem,  because  wc  shall  find  tbe  Roman 
tribes,  in  the  time  of  Servius  Tullius,  trying  the  same 
experiment  for  the  same  purpose.  Solon  divided  the 
people  into  four  classes  according  to  the  measure  of  their 
wealth,  and  going  beyond  Theseus,  he  invested  these 
classes  with  certain  powers,  and  imposed  upon  them 
certain  obligations.  It  transferred  a  portion  of  the  civil 
powers  of  the  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes  to  the  property 
classes.  In  proportion  as  the  substance  of  power  was 
drawn  from  the  former  and  invested  in  the  latter,  the 
gentes  would  be  weakened  and  their  decadence  would 
commence.  But  so  far  as  classes  composed  of  persons 
were  substituted  for  gentes  composed  of  persons,  the 
government  was  still  founded  upon    person,    and    upon 


272  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

relations  purely  personal.  The  scheme  failed  to  reach  the 
substance  of  the  question.  Moreover,  in  changing  the 
council  of  chiefs  into  the  senate  of  four  hundred,  the 
members  Vv^ere  taken  in  equal  numbers  from  the  four 
tribes,  and  not  from  the  classes.  But  it  will  be  noticed 
that  the  idta  of  property,  as  the  basis  of  a  system  of 
government,  was  now  incorporated  by  vSolon  in  the  new 
plan  of  property  classes.  It  failed,  however,  to  reach  the 
idea  of  political  society,  which  must  rest  upon  territory 
as  well  as  property,  and  deal  with  persons  through  their 
territorial  relations.  The  first  class  alone  were  eligible  to 
the  high  offices,  the  second  performed  military  service  on 
horseback,  the  third  as  infantry,  and  the  fourth  as  light- 
armed  soldiers.  This  last  class  were  the  numerical  ma- 
jority. They  were  disqualified  from  holding  office,  and 
paid  no  taxes ;  but  in  the  popular  assembly  of  which  they 
were  members,  they  possessed  a  vote  upon  the  election  of 
all  magistrates  and  officers,  with  power  to  bring  them  to 
an  account.  They  also  had  power  to  ad(*pt  or  reject  all 
public  measures  submitted  by  the  senate  to  their  decision. 
Under  the  constitution  of  Solon  their  powers  were  real 
and  durable,  and  their  influence  upon  public  afifairs  was 
permanent  and  substantial.  All  freemen,  though  not 
connected  with  a  gens  and  tribe,  were  now  brought  into 
the  government,  to  a  certain  extent,  by  becoming  citizens 
and  members  of  the  assembly  of  the  people  with  the 
powers  named.  This  was  one  of  the  most  important 
results  of  the  legislation  of  Solon. 

It  v.'ill  be  further  noticed  that  the  people  were  now 
organized  as  an  army,  consisting  of  three  divisions;  the 
cavalry,  the  heavy-armed  infantry,  and  the  light-armed 
infantry,  each  with  its  own  officers  of  different  grades. 
The  form  of  the  statement  limits  the  array  to  the  last 
three  classes,  which  leaves  the  first  class  in  the  un- 
patriotic position  of  appropriating  to  themselves  the 
principal  offices  of  the  government,  and  taking  no  part 
in  the  military  service.  This  undoubtedly  requires  modi- 
fication. The  same  plan  of  organization,  but  including 
the  five  classes,  will  re-appear  among  the  Romans  under 
Servius  Tullius,  by  whom  the  body  of  the  people  were 


INSTITUTION  OF  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY        273 

organized  as  an  army  (exercitus)  fully  officered  and 
equipped  in  each  subdivision.  The  idea  of  a  military 
democracy,  different  in  organization  but  the  same 
theoret'cally  as  that  of  the  previous  period,  re-appears  in 
a  new  dress  both  in  the  Solonian  and  in  the  Servian 
constitdtion. 

In  addition  to  the  property  element,  which  entered 
into  the  basis  of  the  new  system,  the  territorial  element 
was  partially  incorporated  through  the  naucraries  before 
adverted  to,  in  which  it  is  probable  there  was  an  enroll- 
ment of  citizens  and  of  their  property  to  form  a  basis 
for  military  levies  and  for  taxation.  These  provisions, 
with  the  senate,  the  popular  assembly  now  called  the 
ecclesia,  the  nine  archons,  and  the  Court  of  Areopagus, 
gave  to  the  Athenians  a  much  more  elaborate  government 
than  they  had  before  known,  and  requiring  a  higher 
degree  of  intelligence  for  its  management.  It  was  also 
essentially  (lemocratical  in  harmony  with  their  antecedent 
ideas  and  institutions ;  in  fact  a  logical  consequence  of 
them,  and  explainable  only  as  such.  But  it  fell  short  of 
a  pure  system  in  three  respects :  firstly,  it  was  not  founded 
upon  territory;  secondly,  all  the  dignities  of  the  state 
were  not  open  to  every  citizen ;  and  thirdly,  the  principle 
of  local  self-government  in  primary  organizations  was 
unknown,  except  as  it  may  have  existed  imperfectly  in 
the  naucraries.  The  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes  still 
remained  in  full  vitality,  but  with  diminished  powers.  It 
was  a  transitional  condition,  requiring  further*  experience 
to  develop  the  theory  of  a  political  system  toward  which 
it  was  a  great  advance.  Thus  slowly  but  steadily  human 
institutions  are  evolved  from  lower  into  higher  forms, 
through  the  logical  operations  of  the  human  mind  work- 
ing in  uniform  but  predetermined  channels. 

There  was  one  weighty  reason  for  the  overthrow^  of 
the  gentes  and  the  substitution  of  a  new  plan  of  govern- 
ment. It  was  probably  recognized  by  Theseus,  and 
undoubtedly  by  Solon.  From  the  disturbed  condition  of 
the  Grecian  tribes  and  the  unavoidable  movements  of  the 
people  in  the  traditionary  period  and  in  the  times  prior  to 
Solon,  tnany  persons  transfered    themselves    from    one 


374  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

nation  to  another,  and  thus  lost  their  connection  with 
their  own  gens  without  acquiring  a  connection  with 
another.  This  would  repeat  itself  from  time  to  time, 
through  personal  adventure,  the  spirit  of  trade,  and  the 
exigencies  of  warfare,  until  a  considerable  number  with 
their  posterity  would  be  developed  in  every  tribe 
unconnected  with  any  gens.  All  such  persons,  as  before 
remarked,  would  be  without  the  pale  of  the  government 
with  which  ther^  could  be  no  connection  excepting 
through  a  gens  and  tribe.  The  fact  is  noticed  by  Mr. 
Grote.  "The  phratries  and  gentes,"  he  remarks, 
"probabl}^  never  at  any  time  included  the  whole  popu- 
lation of  the  country — and  the  population  not  included 
in  them  tended  to  become  larger  and  larger  in  the  times 
anterior  to  Kleisthenes,  as  well  as  afterwards.'"  As  early 
as  the  time  of  Lycurgus  there  was  a  considerable  immi- 
gration into  Greece  from  the  islands  of  the  Mediterranean 
and  from  the  Ionian  cities  of  its  eastern  coasts,  which 
increased  the  number  of  persons  unattached  to  any  gens. 
When  they  came  in  families  they  would  bring  a  fragment 
of  a  new  gens  with  them;  but  they  would  remain  aliens 
unless  the  new  gens  was  admitted  into  a  tribe.  This 
probably  occurred  in  a  number  of  cases,  and  it  may  assist 
in  explaining  the  unusual  number  of  gentes  in  Greece.  The 
gentes  and  phratries  were  clo^e  corporations,  both  of 
which  would  have  been  adulterated  by  the  absorption  of 
these  aliens  through  adoption  into  a  native  gens.,  Persons 
of  distinction  might  be  adopted  into  some  gens,  or  secure 
the  admission  of  their  own  gens  into  some  tribe ;  but  the 
poorer  class  would  be  refused  either  privilege.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  as  far  back  as  the  time  of  Theseus, 
and  more  especially  in  the  time  of  Solon,  the  number  of 
the  unattached  class,  exclusive  of  the  slaves,  had  become 
large.  Having  neither  gens  nor  phratry  they  were  also 
without  direct  religious  privileges,  which  were  inherent 
and  exclusive  in  these  organizations.  It  is  not  difficult  to 
see  in  this  class  of  persons  a  growing  element  o(  discon- 
tent dangerous  to  the  security  of  society. 

I  "History  of  Greece,"  iil,  65. 


INSTITUTION  OF  GRECIAN  POLITICAL.  SOCIETY       275 

The  schemes  of  Theseus  and  of  Solon  made  imperfect 
provision  for  their  admission  to  citizenship  through  the 
classes;  but  as  the  gentes  and  phratries  remained  from 
which  they  were  excluded,  the  remedy  was  still  incom- 
plete. Mr.  Grote  further  remarks,  that  "it  is  not  easy  to 
make  out  distinctly  what  was  the  political  position  of  the 
ancient  Gentes  and  Phratries,  as  Solon  left  them.  The 
four  tribes  consisted  altogether  of  gentes  and  phratries, 
insomuch  that  no  one  could  be  included  in  any  one  of  the 
tribes  who  was  not  also  a  member  of  some  gens  and 
phratry.  Now  the  new  probouleutic  or  pre-considering 
Fcnate  consisted  of  400  members, — 100  from  each  of  the 
tribes :  persons  not  included  in  any  gens  and  phratry 
could  therefore  have  had  no  access  to  it.  The  conditions 
of  eligibility  were  similar,  according  to  ancient  custom, 
for  the  nine  archons — of  course,  also,  for  the  senate  of 
Areopagus.  So  that  there  remained  only  the  public 
assembly,  in  which  an  Athenian,  not  a  member  of  these 
tribes,  could  take  part:  yet  he  was  a  citizen,  since  he 
could  give  his  vote  for  archons  and  senators,  and 
could  take  part  in  the  annual  decision  of  their  account- 
ability, besides  being  entitled  to  claim  redress  for  wrong 
from' the  archons  in  his  own  person — while  the  alien 
could  only  do  so  through  the  intervention  of  an  avouching 
citizen,  or  Prostates.  It  seems  therefore  that  all  persons 
not  included  in  the  four  tribes,  whatever  their  grade  or 
fortune  might  be,  were  on  the  same  level  in  respect  to 
political  privilege  as  the  fourth  and  poorest  class  of  the 
Solonian  census.  It  has  already  been  remarked,  that 
even  before  the  time  of  Solon,  the  number  of  Athenians 
not  included  in  the  gentes  or  phratries  was  probably 
considerable :  it  tended  to  become  greater  and  greater, 
since  these  bodies  were  close  and  unexpansive,  while  the 
policy  of  the  new  lawgiver  tended  to  invite  industrious 
settlers  from  other  parts  of  Greece  to  Athens."'  The 
Roman  Plebeians  orginated  from  causes  precisely  similar. 
They  were  not  members  of  any  gens,  and  therefore 
formed  no  part  of  the  Populus  Romanus.     We  may  find 

I  "History  of  Greece,"  lii,  133. 


276  ANCIENT  SOCIETY      * 

in  the  facts  stated  one  of  the  reasons  of  the  failure  of  the 
gentile  organization  to  meet  the  requirements  of  society. 
In  the  time  of  Solon,  society  had  outgrown  their  ability  to 
govern,  its  affairs  had  advanced  so  far  beyond  the  condi- 
tion in  which  the  gentes  originated.  They  furnished  a 
basis  too  narrow  for  a  state,  up  to  the  measure  of  which 
the  people  had  grown. 

There  "was  also  an  increasing  difficulty  in  keeping  the 
members  of  a  gens,  phratry  and  tribe  locally  together. 
As  parts  of  a  governmental  organic  series,  this  fact  of 
localization  w^as  higly  necessary.  In  the  earlier  period, 
the  gens  held  its  lands  in  common,  the  phratries  held 
certain  lands  in  common  for  religious  uses,  and  the  tribe 
probably  held  other  lands  in  common.  When  they  estab- 
lished themselves  in  country  or  city,  they  settled  locally 
together  by  gentes,  by  phratries  and  by  tribes,  as  a 
consequence  of  their  social  organization.  Each  gens  was 
in  the  main  by  itself — not  all  of  its  members,  for  two 
gentes  were  represented  in  every  family,  but  the  body 
who  propagated  the  gens.  Those  gentes  belonging  to 
the  same  phratry  naturally  sought  contiguous  or  at  least 
near  areas,  and  the  same  with  the  several  phratries  of  the 
tribe.  But  in  the  time  of  Solon,  lands  and  houses  had 
come  to  be  owned  by  individuals  in  severalty,  with  power 
of  alienation  as  to  lands,  but  not  of  houses  out  of  the 
gens.  It  doubtless  became  more  and  more  impossible  to 
keep  the  members  of  a  gens  locally  together,  from  the 
shifting  relations  of  persons  to  land,  and  from  the  crea- 
tion of  new  property  by  its  members  in  other  localities. 
The  unit  of  their  social  system  was  becoming  unstable  in 
place,  and  also  in  character.  Without  stopping  to  develop 
this  fact  of  their  condition  further,  it  must  have  proved 
one  of  the  reasons  of  the  failure  of  the  old  plan  of 
government.  The  township,  with  its  fixed  property  and 
its  inhabitants  for  the  time  being,  yielded  that  element  of 
permanence  now  wanting  in  the  gens.  Society  had  made 
immense  progress  from  its  former  condition  of  extreme 
simfjlicity.  It  was  very  different  from  that  which  the 
gentik'  organization  was  instituted  to  govern.  Nothing 
but  the  unsettled  condition  and  incessant  warfare  of  the 


INSTITUTION  OF  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY        ^77 

Athenian  tribes,  from  their  settlement  in  Attica  to  the 
time  of  Solon,  could  have  preserved  this  organization 
from  overthrow.  After  their  establishment  in  walled 
cities,  that  rapid  development  of  wealth  and  numbers 
occurred  which  brought  the  gentes  to  the  final  test,  and 
demonstrated  their  inability  to  govern  a  people  now  rap- 
idly approaching  civilization.  But  their  displacement 
even  then  required  a  long  period  of  time. 

The  seriousness  of  the  difficulties  to  be  overcome  in 
creating  a  political  society  are  strikingly  illustrated  in 
the  experience  of  the  Athenians.  In  the  time  of  Solon, 
Athens  had  already  produced  able  men ;  the  useful  arts 
had  attained  a  very  considerable  development ;  commerce 
on  the  sea  had  become  a  national  interest ;  agriculture 
and  manufactures  were  well  advanced ;  and  written 
composition  in  verse  had  commenced.  They  were  in  fact 
a  civilized  people,  and  had  been  for  two  centuries ;  but 
their  institutions  of  government  were  still  gentile,  and  of 
the  type  prevalent  throughout  the  Later  Period  of  bar- 
barism. A  great  impetus  had  been  given  to  the  Athenian 
commonwealth  by  the  new  system  of  Solon ;  nevertheless, 
nearly  a  century  elapsed,  accompanied  with  many  dis- 
orders, before  the  idea  of  a  state  was  fully  developed  in 
the  Athenian  mind.  Out  of  the  naucrary,  a  conception 
of  a  township  as  the  unit  of  a  political  system  was 
finally  elaborated ;  but  it  required  a  man  of  the  highest 
genius,  as  well  as  great  personal  influence,  to  seize  the 
idea  in  its  fullness,  and  give  it  an  organic  embodiment. 
That  man  finally  appeared  in  Cleisthenes  (509  B.  C). 
who  must  be  regarded  as  the  first  of  Athenian  legislators 
— the  founder  of  the  second  great  plan  of  human  govern- 
ment, that  under  which  modern  civilized  nations  are 
organized. 

Cleisthenes  went  to  the  bottom  of  the  question,  and 
placed  the  Athenian  political  system  upon  the  foundation 
on  which  it  remained  to  the  close  of  the  independent 
existence  of  the  commonwealth.  He  divided  Attica  into 
a  hundred  demes,  or  townships,  each  circumscribed  by 
rnetes  and  bounds,  and  distinguished  by  a  name.  Every 
citizen  was  required  to  register  himself,  and  to  cause  an 


*J78  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

enrollment  of  his  property  in  the  deme  in  which  he 
resided.  This  enrollment  was  the  evidence  as  well  as  the 
foundation  of  his  civil  privileges.  The  deme  displaced 
the  naucrary.  Its  inhabitants  were  an  organized  bod}' 
politic  with  powers  of  local  self-government,  like  the 
modern  American  township.  This  is  the  vital  and  the 
remarkable  feature  of  the  system.  It  reveals  at  once  its 
democratic  character.  The  government  was  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  people  in  the  first  of  the  series  of  territorial 
organizations.  The  demotse  elected  a  demarch,  who  had 
the  custody  of  the  public  register ;  he  had  also  power 
to  convene'  the  demotae  for  the  purpose  of  electing 
magistrates  and  judges,  for  revising  the  registry  of 
citizens,  and  for  the  enrollment  of  such  as  became  of  ag'e 
during  the  year.  They  elected  a  treasurer,  and  provided 
for  the  assessment  and  collection  of  taxes,  and  for 
furnishing  the  quota  of  troops  required  of  the  deme  for 
the  service  of  the  state.  They  also  elected  thirty  dicasts 
or  judges,  who  tried  all  causes  arising  in  the  deme  where 
the  amount  involved  fell  below  a  certain  sum.  Besides 
these  powers  of  local  self-government,  which  is  the 
essence  of  a  democratic  system,  each  deme  had  its  own 
temple  and  religious  worship,  and  its  own  priest,  also 
elected  by  the  demot?e.  Omitting  minor  particulars,  we 
find  the  instructive  and  remarkable  fact  that  the  town- 
ship, as  first  instituted,  possessed  all  the  powers  of  local 
self-government,  and  even  upon  a  fuller  and  larger  scale 
than  an  American  township.  Freedom  in  religion  is  also 
noticeable,  which  was  placed  where  it  rightfully  belongs, 
under  the  control  of  the  people.  All  registered  citizens 
were  free,  and  equal  in  their  rights  and  privileges,  with 
the  exception  of  equal  eligibility  to  the  higher  offices. 
Such  was  the  new  unit  of  organization  in  Athenian 
political  society,  at  once  a  model  for  a  free  state,  and  a 
marvel  of  wisdom  and  knowledge.  The  Athenians  com- 
menced with  a  democratic  organization  at  the  point  where 
every  people  must  commence  who  desire  to  create  a 
free  state,  and  place  the  control  of  the  government  in  the 
hands  of  its  citizens. 

The  second  member  of  the    organic   territorial    series 


INSTITUTION  OF  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY        279 

consisted  of  ten  demes,  united  in  a  larger  geographical 
district.  It  was  called  a  local  tribe,  to  preserve  some  part 
of  the  terminology  of  the  old  gentile  system.^  Each 
district  was  named  after  an  Attic  hero,  and  it  was  the 
analogue  of  the  modern  county.  The  demes  in  each 
district  were  usually  contiguous,  which  should  have  been 
true  in  every  instance  to  render  the  analogy  complete :  but 
in  a  few  cases  one  or  more  of  the  ten  were  detached, 
probably  in  consequence  of  the  local  separation  of  por- 
tions of  the  original  consanguine  tribe  who  desired  to 
have  their  deme  incorporated  in  the  district  of  their 
immediate  kinsmen.  The  inhabitants  of  each  district  or 
county  were  also  a  body  politic,  with  certain  powers  of 
local  self-government.  They  elected  a  phylarch,  who 
commanded  the  cavalry ;  a  taxiarch,  who  commanded  the 
foot-soldiers  and  a  general,  who  commanded  both ; 
and  as  each  district  was  required  to  furnish  five  triremes, 
they  probably  elected  as  many  trierarchs  to  command 
them.  Cleisthenes  increased  the  senate  to  five  hundred, 
and  assigned  fifty  to  each  district.  They  were  elected  by 
its  inhabitants.  Other  functions  of  this  larger  body  pol- 
itic doubtless  existed,  but  they  have  been  imperfectly  ex- 
plained. 

The  third  and  last  member  of  the  territorial  series  was 
the  Athenian  commonwealth  or  state,  consisting  of  ten 
local  tribes  or  districts.  It  was  an  organized  body  politic, 
embracing  the  aggregate  of  Athenian  citi/^ens.  It  was 
represented  by  a  senate,  an  ecclesia.  the  court  of  Areo- 
pagus, the  archons,  and  judges,  and  the  body  of  elected 
military  and  naval  commanders. 

Thus  the  Athenians  founded  the  second  great  plan  of 
government  upon  territory  and  upon  property.  They 
substituted  a  series  of  territorial  aggregates  in  the  -place 
of  an  ascending  series  of  aggregates  of  persons. 
As  a  plan  of  government  it  rested  upon  territory  which 
was  necessarily  permanent,  and  upon  property  which  was 

I  The  Latin  "tribus"3;;tribc,  slpnifled  originally  "a  third  part," 
and  was  used  to  designate  a  third  part  of  the  people  when 
composed  of  three  tribes;  but  In  course  of  time,  after  the  Latin 
tribes  were  made  local  Instead  of  consanguine,  like  the  Athen- 
ian local  tribes,  the  term  tribe  lost  its  numerical  quality,  and 
came,  like  the  phylon  of  Cleisthenes  to  be  a  .local  designation. 
—See  Mommsen's   "Hist,  of  Rome",  1.  c,  i,   71. 


2go  ANCIENT  SO(^IET-r 

more  or  less  localized ;  and  it  dealt  with  its  citizens,  now 
localized  in  demes  though  their  territorial  relations.^  _  To 
be  a  citizen  of  the  state  it  was  necessary  to  be  a  citizen 
of  a  deme.  The  person  voted  and  was  taxed  in  his  deme, 
and  he  was  called  into  the  military  service  from  his  deme. 
In  like  manner  he  was  called  by  election  into  the  senate, 
and  to  the  command  of  a  division  of  the  army  or  navy 
from  the  larger  district  of  his  local  tribe._  His  relations 
to  a  gens  or  phratry  ceased  to  govern  his  duties  as  a 
citizen.  The  contrast  between  the  two  systems  is  as 
marked  as  their  difference  was  fundamental.  A  coales- 
cence of  the  people  into  bodies  politic  in  territorial  areas 
now  became  complete. 

The  territorial  series  enters  into  the  plan  of  govern- 
ment of  modern  civilized  nations.  Among  ourselves,  for 
example,  we  have  the  township,  the  county,  the  state,  and 
the  United  States;  the  inhabitants  of  each  of  which  are 
an  organized  body  politic  with  powers  of  local  self- 
government.  Each  organization  is  in  full  vitality  and 
performs  its  functions  within  a  definite  sphere  in  which 
it  is  supreme.  France  has  a  similar  series  in  the  commune, 
the  arrondissement,  the  department,  and  the  empire,  now 
the  republic.  In  Great  Britain  the  series  is  the  parish,  the 
shire,  the  kingdom,  and  the  three  kingdoms.  In  the 
Saxon  period  the  hundred  seems  to  have  been  the 
analogue  of  the  township  ;^  but  already  emasculated  of  the 
powers  of  local  self-government,  with  the  exception  of 
the  hundred  court.  The  inhabitants  of  these  several  areas 
were  organized  as  bodies  politic,  but  those  below  the 
highest  with  very  limited  powers.  The  tendency  to  cen- 
tralization under  monarchical  institutions  has  atrophied, 
practically,  all  the  lower  organizations. 

As  a  consequence  of  the  legislation  of  Cleisthenes,  the 
gentes,  phratries  end  tribes  were  divested  of  their 
influence,  because  their  powers  were  taken  from  them  and 
vested  in  the  deme,  the  local  tribe  and  the  state,  which 
became  from  thenceforth  the  sources  of  all  political 
power.    They  were  not  dissolved,  however,  even  after  this 


I   "Angflo  Saxon  Law,"  hy  Ilpnry  Adams  and  others,  pp.   20,  23. 


INSTITUTION  OF  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY        281 

«.«»wihrow,  but  remained  for  centuries  as  a  pedigree  and 
lineage,  and  as  fountains  of  religious  life.  In  certain 
orations  of  Demosthenes,  where  the  cases  involved 
personal  or  property  rights,  descents  or  rights  of  sep- 
ulture, both  the  gens  and  phratry  appear  as  living  organi- 
zations in  h/s  time.  ^  They  were  left  undisturbed  by  the 
new  system  so  far  as  their  connection  with  religious  rites, 
with  certain  criminal  proceedings,  and  with  certain  social 
practices  were  concerned,  which  arrested  their  total 
dissolution.  The  classes,  however,  both  those  instituted 
by  Theseus  and  tfiose  afterwards  created  by  Solon,  dis- 
appeared after  the  time  of  Cleisthenes.^ 

Solon  is  usually  regarded  as  the  founder  of  Athenian 
democracy,  while  some  writers  attribute  a  portion  of  the 
work  to  Cleisthenes  and  Theseus.  We  shall  draw  nearer 
the  truth  of  the  matter  by  regarding  Theseus,  Solon  and 
Cleisthenes  as  standing  connected  with  three  great  move- 
ments of  the  Athenian  people,  not  to  found  a  democracy, 
for  Athenian  democracy  was  older  than  either,  but  to 
change  the  plan  of  government  from  a  gentile  into  a 
political  organization.  Neither  sought  to  change  the  ex- 
isting principles  of  democracy  which  had  been  inherited 
from  the  gentes.  They  contributed  in  their  respective 
times  to  the  great  movement  for  the  formation  of  a  state, 
which  required  the  substitution  of  a  political  in  the  place 
of  gentile  society.  The  invention  of  a  township,  and  the 
organization  of  its  inhabitants  as  a  body  politic,  was  the 
main  feature  in  the  problem.  It  may  seem  to  us  a  simple 
matter;  but  it  taxed  the  capacities  of  the  Athenians  to 
their  lowest  depths  before  the  idea  of  a  township  found 
expression  in  its  actual  creation.  It  was  an  inspiration 
of  the  genius  of  Cleisthenes ;  and  it  stands  as  the  master 
work  of  a  master  mind.  In  the  new  political  society  they 
realized  that  complete  democracy  which  already  existed 
in  every  essential  principle,  but  which  required  a  change 
in  the  plan  of  government  to  give  it  a  more  ample  field 


1  See   particularly   the   Orations   against    Eubulldes,    and   Mar- 
catus. 

2  Hermann's    "Political   Antiquities  of  Greece",   1.   c.    p.    187,    s. 
96. 


98J^  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

and  a  fuller  expression.  It  is  precisely  here,  as  it  seems 
to  the  writer,  that  we  have  been  misled  by  the  erroneous 
assumption  of  the  great  historian,  ]\Ir.  Grote,  whose 
general  views  of  Grecian  institutions  are  so  sound  and 
perspicuous,  namely,  that  the  early  governments  of  the 
Grecian  tribes  were  essentially  monarchical.^  On  this 
assumption  it  requires  a  revolution  of  institutions  to  ex- 
plain the  existence  of  that  Athenian  democracy  under 
which  the  great  mental  achievements  of  the  Athenians 
were  made.  No  such  revolution  occurred,  and  no  radical 
change  of  institutions  was  ever  effected,  for  the  reason 
that  they  were  and  always  had  been  essentially  denio- 
cratical.  Usurpations  not  unlikely  occurred,  followed 
by  controversies  for  the  restoration  of  the  previous  or- 
der; but  they  never  lost  their  liberties,  or  those  ideas  of 
freedom  and  of  the  right  of  self-government  which  had 
been  their  inheritance  in  all  ages. 

Recurring  for  a  moment  to  the  basileus,  the  office  tend- 
ed to  make  the  man  more  conspicuous  than  any  other  in 
their  affairs.  He  was  the  first  person  to  catch  the  mental 
eye  of  the  historian  by  whom  he  has  been  metamorph- 
osed into  a  king,  notwithstanding  he  was  made  to  reign, 
and  by  divine  right,  over  a  rude  democracy.  As  a  general 
in  a  military  democracy,  the  basileus  becomes  intelligible, 
and  without  violating  the  institutions  that  actually 
existed.  The  introduction  of  this  office  did  not  change 
the  principles  of  the  gentes,  phratries  and  tribes,  which 
in  their  organization  were  essentially  democratical,  and 
which  of  necessity  impressed  that  character  on  their 
gentile  system.  Evidence  is  not  wanting  that  the  popular 
element  was  constantly  active  to  resist  encroachments  on 
personal  rights.  The  basileus  belongs  to  the  traditionary 
period,  when  the  powers  of  government  were  more  or 
less  undefined ;  but  the  council  of  chiefs  existed  in  the 
centre  of  the  system,  and  also  the  gentes,  phratries  and 


I  "The  primitive  Grecian  government  is  essentially  monarch- 
ical, reposing  on  personal  feeling  and  divine  right."— "History 
of  Greece,"  11,  69. 


INSTITUTION  OP  GRECIAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY        383 

tribes  in  full  vitality.     These  are  sufficient  to  determine 
the  character  of  the  government.  ^ 

The  government  as  reconstituted  by  Cleisthenes  con- 
trasted strongly  with  that  previous  to  the  time  of  Solon. 
But  the  transition  was  not  only  natural  but  inevitable  if 
the  people  followed  their  ideas  to  their  logical  results.  It 
wasi  a  change  of  plan,  but  not  of  principles  nor  even  of 
instrumentalities.  The  council  of  chiefs  remained  in  the 
senate,  the  agora  in  the  ecclesia ;  the  three  highest  archons 
were  respectively  ministers  of  state,  of  religion,  and  of 
justice  as  before,  while  the  six  inferior  archons  exercised 
judicial  functions  in  connection  with  the  courts,  and  the 
large  body  of  dicasts  now  elected  annually  for  judicial 
service.  No  executive  officer  existed  under  the  system, 
which  is  one  of  its  striking  peculiarities.  The  nearest  ap- 
proach to  it  was  the  president  of  the  senate,  who  was 
elected  by  lot  for  a  single  day,  without  the  possibility  of 
a  re-election  during  the  year.  For  a  single  day  he 
presided  over  the  popular  assembly,  and  held  the  keys  of 
the  citadel  and  of  the  treasury.  Under  the  new  govern- 
ment the  popular  assembly  held  the  substance  of  power, 
and  guided  the  destiny  of  Athens.  The  new  element 
which  gave  stability  and  order  to  the  state  was  the  deme 
or  township,  with  its  complete  autonomy,  and  local  self- 
government.  A  hundred  demes  similarly  organized  would 
determine  the  general  movement  of  the  commonwealth. 
As  the  unit,  so  the  compound.  It  is  here  that  the  people, 
as  before  remarked,  must  begin  if  they  would  learn  the 
art  of  self-government,  and  maintain  equal  laws  and 
equal  rights  and  privileges.  They  must  retain  in  their 
hands,  all  the  powers  of  society  not  necessary  to  the  state 
to  insure  an  efficient  general  administration,  as  well  as  the 
control  of  the  administration  itself. 


I  Sparta  retained  the  office  of  baslleus  in  the  period  of  civili- 
zation. It  was  a  dual  generalship,  and  hereditary  In  a  partic- 
ular family.  The  powers  of  government  were  co-ordinated 
between  the  Gerousla  or  council,  the  popular  assembly,  the  five 
ephors.  and  two  military  commanders.  The  ephors  were  elected 
annually,  with  powers  analogous  to  the  Roman  tribunes.  Roy- 
alty at  Sparta  needs  qualification.  The  basllels  commanded  th# 
army,  and  in  their  capacity  of  chief  priests  offered  the  sacrifices 
to  the  gods. 


284  ANCIENT  SOClETf 

Athens  rose  rapidly  into  influence  and  distinction  un- 
der the  new  political  system.  That  remarkable  develop- 
ment of  genius  and  intelligence,  which  raised  the  Athen- 
ians to  the  highest  eminence  among  the  historical  nations 
of  mankind,  occurred  under  the  inspiration  of  democratic 
institutions. 

With  the  institution  of  political  society  under  Cleis- 
thenes,  the  gentile  organization  was  laid  aside  as  a  por- 
tion of  the  rags  of  barbarism.  Their  ancestors  had  lived 
for  untold  centuries  in  gentilism,  with  which  they  had 
achieved  all  the  elements  of  civilization,  including  a  writ- 
ten language,  as  well  as  entered  upon  a  civilized  career. 
The  history  of  the  gentile  organization  will  remain  as  a 
perpetual  monument  of  the  anterior  ages,  identified  as  it 
has  been  with  the  most  remarkable  and  extended  expe- 
rience of  mankind.  It  must  ever  be  ranked  as  one  of  the 
most  remarkable  institutions  of  the  human  family. 

In  this  brief  and  inadequate  review  the  discussion  has 
been  confined  to  the  main  course  of  events  in  Athenian 
history.  Whatever  was  true  of  the  Athenian  tribes  will 
be  found  substantially  true  of  the  remaining  Grecian 
tribes,  though  not  exhibited  on  so  broad  or  so  grand  a 
scale.  The  discussion  tends  to  render  still  more  apparent 
one  of  the  main  propositions  advanced  —  that  the  idea  of 
government  in  all  the  tribes  of  mankind  has  been  a 
growth  through  successive  stages  of  development. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE    ROMAN    GENS 

When  the  Latins,  and  their  congeners  the  SabeUians, 
the  Oscans  and  the  Umbrians,  entered  the  ItaHan  penin- 
sula probably  as  one  people,  they  were  in  possession  of 
domestic  animals,  and  probably  cultivated  cereals  and 
plants.  ^     At  the  least  they  were  well  advanced  in  the 

I  "During  the  period  when  the  Indo-Germanic  nations  which 
are  now  separated  still  formed  one  stock  speaking  the  same 
language,  they  attained  a  certain  stage  of  culture,  and  they 
had  a  vocabulary  corresponding  to  it.  This  vocabulary  the 
several  nations  carried  along  with  them,  in  its  conventionally 
established  use,  as  a  common  dowry  and  a  foundation  for 
further  structures  of  their  own.  ...  In  this  way  we  possess 
evidence  of  the  development  of  pastoral  life  at  that  remote 
epoch  in  the  unalterably  fixed  names  of  domestic  animals;  the 
Sanskrit  "gftus"  is  the  Latin  "bos,"  the  Greek  "bous";  Sanskrit 
"avis,"  is  the  Latin  "ovis."  the  Greek  "ois;"  Sanskrit  "a^vas," 
Latin  "equus,"  Greek  "hippos,"  Sanskrit  "hansas,"  Latin  "anser." 
Greek  "chen;"  ...  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  as  yet  no  certain 
proofs  of  the  existence  of  agriculture  at  this  period.  Language 
rather  favors  the  negative  view."— Mommsen's  "History  of 
Rome,"  Dickson's  Trans.,  Scribner's  ed.,  1871,  1,  37.  In  a  note 
he  remarks  that  "barley,  wheat,  and  spelt  were  found  growing 
together  in  a  w^ild  state  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Euphrates, 
northwest  from  Anah.  The  growth  of  barley  and  wheat  in  a 
wild  state  in  Mesopotamia  had  already  been  mentioned  by  the 
Babylonian  historian,  Berosus." 

Flck  remarks  upon  the  same  subject  as  follows:  "While  past- 
urage evidently  formed  the  foundation  of  primitive  social  life 
we  can  find  in  it  but  very  slight  beginnings  of  agriculture. 
They  were  acquainted  to  be  sure  with  a  few  of  the  grains,  but 
the  cultivation  of  these  was  carried  on  very  incidentally  In 
order  to  gain  a  supply  of  milk  and  ttesh.  The  material  exist- 
ence of  the  people  rested  in  no  way  upon  agriculture.  This 
becomes  entirely  clear  from  the  small  number  of  primitive 
words  which  have  reference  to  agriculture.  These  words  are 
"yava,"  wild  fruit,  "varka,"  hoe,  or  plow,  "rava."  sickle,  to- 
gether with  "plo,  pinsere"  (to  bake)  and  "mak."  Gk.  "masso." 
which  give  Indications  of  threshing  out  and  grinding  of  grain." 
—Pick's  "Primitive  Unity  of  Indo-European  Languages,  '  Oat- 
tlngen.  1S73,  p.  280.  See  also  "Chips  From  a  German  Work- 
shop," ii,  42. 

With  reference  to  the  possession  of  agriculture  by  the 
Graeco-Itallc  people,   see  Mommsen.   1.   p.   47,     et  seq. 

9tt 


286  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

Middle  Status  of  barbarism ;  and  when  they  first  came 
under  historical  notice  they  were  in  the  Upper  Status, 
and  near  the  threshold  of  civilization. 

The  traditionary  history  of  the  Latin  tribes,  prior  to  the 
time  of  Romulus,  is  much  more  scanty  and  imperfect  than 
that  of  the  Grecian,  whose  earlier  relative  literary  culture 
and  stronger  literary  proclivities  enabled  them  to  pre- 
serve a  larger  proportion  of  their  traditionarv  accounts. 
Concerning  their  anterior  experience,  tradition  did  not 
reach  beyond  their  previous  life  on  the  Alban  hills,  and 
the  ranges  of  the  Appenines  eastward  from  the  site  of 
Rome.  For  tribes  so  far  advanced  in  the  arts  of  life  it 
would  have  required  a  long  occupation  of  Italy  to  efface 
all  knowledge  of  the  country  from  which  they  came.  In 
the  time  of  Romulus*  they  had  already  fallen  by  segmen- 
tation into  thirty  independent  tribes,  still  united  in  a  loose 
confederacy  for  mutual  protection.  They  also  occupied 
contiguous  territorial  areas.  The  Sabellians,  Oscans,  and 
Umbrians  were  in  the  same  general  condition ;  their  re- 
spective tribes  were  in  the  same  relations ;  and  their  terri- 
torial circumscriptions,  as  might  have  been  expected,  were 
founded  upon  dialect.  All  alike,  including  their  northern 
neighbors  the  Etruscans,  were  organized  in  gentes,  with 
institutions  similar  to  those  of  the  Grecian  tribes.  Such 
was  their  general  condition  when  they  first  emerged  from, 
behind  the  dark  curtain  of  their  previous  obscurity,  and 
the  light  of  history  fell  upon  them. 

Roman  history  has  touched  but  slightly  the  particulars 
of  a  vast  experience  anterior  to  the  founding  of  Rome 
(about  753  B.  C.)  The  Italian  tribes  had  then  become 
numerous  and  populous ;  they  had  become  strictly  agri- 
cultural in  their  habits,  possessed  flocks  and  herds  of 
domestic  animals,  rmd  had  made  great  progress  in  the 
arts  of  life.  They  had  also  attained  the  monogamian 
family.  All  this  is  shown  by  tlieir  condition  when  first 
made  known  to  us ;  but  the  j^articulars  of  their  progress 


I  TJip  use  of  thfi  word  Romulus,  and  of  tlip  namos  of  Iil.s  suc- 
ce.s8or.s,  dops  not  Involve  the  adoption  of  the  ancient  Roman 
traditions.  These  names  personify  the  great  movements  which 
then    took   place   with    which   we   are   chiefly   concerned. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS  887 

from  a  lower  to  a  higher  state  had,  in  the  main,  fallen 
out  of  knowledge.  They  were  backward  in  the  growth 
of  the  idea  of  government ;  since  the  confederacy  of  tribes 
was  still  the  full  extent  of  their  advancement.  Although 
the  thirty  tribes  were  confederated,  it  was  in  the  nature 
of  a  league  for  mutual  defense,  and  neither  sufficiently 
close  or  intimate  to  tend  to  a  nationality. 

The  Etruscan  tribes  were  confederated ;  and  the  same 
was  probably  true  of  the  Sabellian.  Oscan  and  Umbrian 
tribes.  While  the  Latin  tribes  possessed  numerous  forti- 
fied towns  and  country  strongholds,  they  were  spread  over 
the  surface  of  the  country  for  agricultural  pursuits,  and 
for  the  maintenance  of  their  flocks  and  herds.  Concentra- 
tion and  coalescence  had  not  occurred  to  any  marked  ex- 
tent until  the  great  movement  ascribed  to  Romulus  which 
resulted  in  the  foundation  of  Rome.  These  loosely  united 
Latin  tribes  furnished  the  principal  materials  from  which 
the  new  city  was  to  draw  its  strength.  The  accounts  of 
these  tribes  from  the  time  of  the  supremacy  of  the  chiefs 
of  Alba  down  to  the  time  of  Servius  Tullius,  were  made 
up  to  a  great  extent  of  fables  and  traditions;  but  certain 
facts  remained  in  the  institutions  and  social  usages  trans- 
mitted to  the  historical  period  which  tend,  in  a  remark- 
able manner,  to  illustrate  their  previous  condition.  They 
are  even  more  important  than  an  outline  history  of  act- 
ual events. 

Among  the  institutions  of  the  Latin  tribes  existing  at 
the  commencement  of  the  historical  period  were  the 
gentes,  curise  and  tribes  upon  which  Romulus  and  his 
successors  established  the  Roman  power.  The  new  gov- 
ernment was  not  in  all  respects  a  natural  growth  ;■  but 
modified  in  the  upper  members  of  the  organic  series  by 
legislative  procurement.  The  gentes,  however,  which 
formed  the  basis  of  the  organization,  were  natural 
growths,  and  in  the  main  either  of  common  or  cognate 
lineage.  That  is,  the  I^tin  gentes  were  of  the  same  lin- 
eage while  the  Sabine  and  other  gentes,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  Etruscans,  were  of  cognate  descent.  In  the 
time  of  Tarquinius  Priscus,  the  fourth  in  succession  from 
Romulus,  the  organization  had  been  brought  to  a  num- 


288  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

erical  scale,  namely :  ten  gentes  to  a  curia,  ten  curiae  to  a 
tribe,  and  three  tribes  of  the  Romans ;  giving  a  total  of 
three  hundred  gentes  integrated  in  one  gentile  society. 

Romulus  had  the  sagacity  to  perceive  that  a  confeder- 
acy of  tribes,  composed  of  gentes  and  occupying  separate 
areas,  had  neither  the  unity  of  purpose  nor  sufficient 
strength  to  accomplish  more  than  the  maintenance  of  an 
independent  existence.  The  tendency  to  disintegration 
counteracted  the  advantages  of  the  federal  principle. 
Concentration  and  coalescence  were  the  remedy  proposed 
by  Romulus  and  the  wise  men  of  his  time.  It  was  a  re- 
markable movement  for  the  period,  and  still  more  re- 
markable in  its  progress  from  the  epoch  of  Romul  is  to 
the  institution  of  political  society  under  Servius  Tuilius. 
Following  the  course  of  the  Athenian  tribes  and  concen- 
trating in  one  city,  they  wrought  out  in  five  generations 
a  similar  and  complete  change  in  the  plan  of  government, 
from  a  gentile  into  a  political  organization. 

It  will  be  sufficient  to  remind  the  reader  of  the  general 
facts  that  Romulus  united  upon  and  around  the  Palatine 
Hill  a  hundred  Latin  gentes,  organized  as  a  tribe,  the 
Ramnes;  that  by  a  fortunate  concurrence  of  circum- 
stances a  large  body  of  Sabines  were  added  to  the  new 
community  whose  gentes,  afterwards  increased  to  one 
hundred,  were  organized  as  a  second  tribe,  the  Titles ; 
and  that  in  the  time  of  Tarquinius  Priscus  a  third  tribe, 
the  Luceres,  had  been  formed,  composed  of  a  hundred 
gentes  drawn  from  surrounding  tribes,  including  the 
Etruscans.  Three  hundred  gentes,  in  about  the  space  of 
a  hundred  years,  were  thus  gathered  at  Rome,  and  com- 
pletely organized  under  a  council  of  chiefs  now  called  the 
Roman  Senate,  an  assembly  of  the  people  now  called  the 
comitia  cufiata.  and  one  military  commander,  the  rex; 
and  with  one  purpose,  that  of  gaining  a  military  ascend- 
ency in  Italy. 

Under  the  constitution  of  Romulus,  and  the  subsequent 
legislation  of  Servius  Tuilius,  the  government  was  essen- 
tiallv  a  nnlitary  democracy,  because  the  military  spirit 
predominated  in  the  government.  Rut  it  may  be  re- 
marked in  passing  that  a  new  and  antagonistic  element. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS  289 

the  Roman  senate,  was  now  incorporated  in  the  centre 
of  the  social  system,  which  conferred  patrician  rank  upon 
its  members  and  their  posterity.  A  privileged  class  was 
thus  created  at  a  stroke,  and  intrenched  first  in  the  gentile 
and  afterwards  in  the  political  system,  which  ultimately 
overthrew  the  democratic  principles  inherited  from  the 
gentcs.  It  was  the  Roman  senate,  with  the  patrician  class 
it  created,  that  changed  the  institutions  and  the  destiny 
of  the  Roman  people,  and  turned  them  from  a  career, 
analogous  to  that  of  the  Athenians,  to  which  their  in- 
herited principles  naturally  and  logically  tended. 

In  its  main  features  the  new  organization  was  a  mas- 
terpiece of  wisdom  for  military  purposes.  It  soon  car- 
ried them  entirely  beyond  the  remaining  Italian  tribes, 
and  ultimately  into  supremacy  over  the  entire  peninsula. 

The  organization  of  the  Latin  and  other  Italian  tribes 
Into  gentes  has  been  investigated  by  Niebuhr,  Hermann, 
Mommsen,  Long  and  others ;  but  their  several  accounts 
fall  short  of  a  clear  and  complete  exposition  of  the  struc- 
ture and  principles  of  the  Italian  gens.  This  is  due  in 
part  to  the  obscurity  in  which  portions  of  the  subject  arc 
enveloped,  and  to  the  absence  of  minute  details  in  the 
Latin  writers.  It  is  also  in  part  due  to  a  misconception, 
oy  some  of  the  first  named  writers,  of  the  relations  of  the 
family  to  the  gens.  They  regard  the  gens  as  composed 
of  families,  whereas  it  was  composed  of  parts  of  families ; 
so  that  the  gens  and  not  the  family  was  the  uu't  of  the 
social  system.  It  may  be  difficult  to  carry  the  investiga- 
tion much  beyond  the  point  where  they  have  lef*"  it ;  but 
information  drawn  from  the  archaic  constitution  of  the 
gens  ma}'  serve  to  elucidate  some  of  its  characteristics 
which  are  now  obscure. 

Concerning  the  prevalence  of  the  organization  into 
gentes  among  the  Italian  tribes,  Niebuhr  remarks  as  fol- 
lows :  "Should  any  one  still  contend  that  no  conclusion 
is  to  be  drawn  from  the  character  of  the  Athenian  gcn- 
netes  to  that  of  the  Roman  gentiles,  he  will  be  bound  to 
show  how  an  institution  which  runs  through  the  whole 
ancient  world  came  to  have  a  completely  different  char- 
acter in  Italv  and  in  Greece  ....  Everv  bodv  of  citizens 


200  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

was  divided  in  this  manner;  the  Gephyrseans  and  Sala- 
minians  as  well  as  the  Athenians,  the  Tusculans  as  well 
as  the  Romans."  ^ 

Besides  the  existence  of  the  Roman  gens,  it  is  desir- 
able to  know  the  nature  of  the  organization ;  its  rights, 
privileges  and  obligations,  and  the  relations  of  the  gentes 
to  each  other,  as  members  of  a  social  system.  After 
these  have  been  considered,  their  relations  to  the  curiae, 
tribes,  and  resulting  people  of  which  they  formed  a  part, 
will  remain  for  consideration  in  the  next  ensuing  chapter. 

After  collecting  the  accessible  information  from  various 
sources  upon  these  subjects  it  will  be  found  incomplete 
in  many  respects,  leaving  some  of  the  attributes  and  func- 
tions of  the  gens  a  matter  of  inference.  The  powers  of 
the  gentes  were  withdrawn,  and  transferred  to  new  po- 
litical bodies  before  historical  composition  among  the 
Romans  had  fairly  commenced.  There  was,  therefore, 
no  practical  necessity  resting  upon  the  Romans  for  pre- 
serving the  special  features  of  a  system  substantially  set 
aside.  Gains,  who  wrote  his  Institutes  in  the  early  part 
of  the  second  century  of  our  era,  took  occasion  to  remark 
that  the  whole  jtis  gentiUcium  had  fallen  into  desuetude, 
and  that  it  was  then  superfluous  to  treat  the  subject.  * 
But  at  the  foundation  of  Rome,  and  for  several  centuries 
thereafter,  the  gentile  organization  was  in  vigorous 
activity. 

The  Roman  definition  of  a  gens  and  of  a  gentilis,  and 
the  line  in  which  descent  was  traced  should  be  presented 
before'  the  characteristics  of  the  gens  are  considered.  In 
theTopics  of  Cicero  a  gentilis  is  defined  as  follows :  Those 
are  gentiles  who  are  of  the  same  name  among  themselves. 
This  is  insufficient.  Who  were  born  of  free  parents. 
Even  that  is  not  sufficient.  No  one  of  whose  ancestors 
has  been  a  slave.  Something  still  is  wanting.  Who  have 
never  suffered  capital  diminution.  This  perhaps  may  do ; 
for  I  am  not  aware  that  Scaevola,  the  Pontiff,  added  any- 
thing to  this  definition.  ^    There  is  one  bv  Festus :    "A 


I    "History  of  Rome,"    1.    v.,    i,    211.    245. 

>    —"Inst.."   iU,    17. 

3  —"Cicero,  Toplca  B." 


THE  ROMAN  GENS  291 

gentilis  is  described  as  one  both  sprung  from  the  same 
stock,  and  who  is  called  by  the  same  name."  ^  Also  by 
Varro:  As  from  an  Aemilius  men  are  born  Aemilii,  and 
gentiles;  so  from  the  name  Aemilius  terms  are  derived 
pertaining  to  gentilism.  ^ 

Cicero  does  not  attempt  to  define  a  gens,  but  rather 
to  furnish  certain  tests  bv  which  the  right  to  the  gentile 
connection  might  be  proved,  or  the  loss  of  it  be  detected. 
Neither  of  these  definitions  show  the  composition  of  a 
gens ;  that  is,  whether  all,  or  a  part  only,  of  the  descend- 
ants of  a  supposed  genarch  w^ere  entitled  to  bear  the  gen- 
tile name ;  and,  if  a  part  only,  what  part.  With  descent 
in  the  male  line  the  gens  would  include  those  only  who 
could  trace  their  descent  through  males  exclusively ;  and 
if  in  the  female  line,  then  through  females  only.  If  lim- 
ited to  neither,  then  all  the  descendants  would  be  included. 
These  definitions  must  have  assumed  that  descent  in  the 
male  line  was  a  fact  known  to  all.  From  other  sources 
it  appears  that  those  only  belonged  to  the  gens  who  could 
trace  their  descent  through  its  male  members.  Roman 
genealogies  supply  this  proof.  Cicero  omitted  the  mate- 
rial fact  that  those  were  gentiles  who  could  trace  their 
descent  through  males  exclusively  from  an  acknowledged 
ancestor  within  the  gens.  It  is  in  part  supplied  by  Festus 
and  Varro.  From  an  Aemilius,  the  latter  remarks,  men 
are  born  Aemilii,  and  gentiles ;  each  must  be  born  of  a 
male  bearing  the  gentile  name.  But  Cicero's  definition 
also  shows  that  a  gentilis  must  bear  the  gentile  name. 

In  the  address  of  the  Roman  tribune  Canuleius  (445 
B.  C),  on  his  proposition  to  repeal  an  existing  law  for- 
bidding intermarriage  between  patricians  and  plebeians, 
there  is  a  statement  implying  descent  in  the  male  line. 
For  what  else  is  there  in  the  matter,  he  remarks,  if  a 
patrician  man  shall  wed  a  plebeian  woman,  or  a  plebeian 
man  a  patrician  woman?  What  right  in  the  end  is  there- 
by changed  ?    The  children  surely  follow  the  father.  ^ 

A  practical  illustration,  derived  from  transmitted  gen- 


1  —Quoted  in  Smith's  "Die.  Gk.  &  Rom.  Antiq.,  Article,  Gens." 

2  —Varro,  "De  Lingua  Latina,"  lib.  vlii,  cap.  4. 

3  —  Livy,     lib.  Iv,  cap.  4. 


292  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

tile  names,  will  show  conclusively  that  descent  was  in  the 
male  line.  Julia,  the  sister  of  Caius  Julius  Caesar,  mar- 
ried Marcus  Attius  Balbus.  Her  name  shows  that  she 
belonged  to  the  Julian  gens.  ^  Her  daughter  Attia,  ac- 
cording to  custom,  took  the  gentile  name  of  her  father 
and  belonged  to  the  Attian  gens.  Attia  married  Caius 
Octavius,  and  became  the  mother  of  Caius  Octavius,  the 
first  Roman  emperor.  The  son,  as  usual,  took  the  gentile 
name  of  his  father,  and  belonged  to  the  Octavian  gens.  ^ 
After  becoming  emperor  he  added  the  names  Caesar 
Augustus. 

In  the  Roman  gens  descent  was  in  the  male  line  from 
Augustus  back  to  Romulus,  and  for  an  unknown  period 
back  of  the  latter.  None  were  gentiles  except  such  as 
could  trace  their  descent  through  males  exclusively  from 
some  acknowledged  ancestor  within  the  gens.  But  it  was 
unnecessary,  because  impossible,  that  all  should  be  able 
to  trace  their  descent  from  the  same  common  ancestor ; 
and  much  less  from  the  eponymous  ancestor. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  in  each  of  the  above  cases,  to 
which  a  large  number  might  be  added,  the  persons  mar- 
ried out  of  the  gens.  Such  was  undoubtedly  the  general 
usage  by  customary  law.  ' 

The  Roman  gens  was  individualized  by  the  following 
rights,  privileges  and  obligations : 

I.     Mutual  rights  of  successioji  to  the  property   of 
dee  cased  gentiles. 

II.     The  possession  of  a  common  burial  place. 

III.     Common  religious  rites;  sacra  gentilicia. 


I  "When  there  was  only  one  daughter  In  a  family,  she  used 
to  be  called  from  the  name  of  the  gens;  thus,  Tullla,  the 
daughter  of  Cicero,  Julia,  the  daugliter  of  Caesar;  Octavia,  the 
fclster  of  Augustus,  etc.;  and  they  retained  the  same  name  after 
they  were  married.  When  there  wore  two  daughters,  the  one 
was  called  Major  and  the  other  Minor.  If  there  were  more 
than  two,  they  were  distinguished  by  their  number:  thus. 
Prima.  Secunda.  Tertia,  Quarta,  Quinta,  etc.;  or  more  softly, 
Tertulla,  Quartilla.  Quintilla,  etc.  .  .  .  During  the  flourishing 
state  of  the  republic,  the  names  of  the  gentes,  and  surnames  of 
thft  familiae,  always  remained  fixed  and  certain.  Tliey  were 
common  to  all  the  children  of  the  family,  and  descended  to 
their  posterity.  But  after  the  subversion  of  liberty  tliey  were 
changed  and  confounded."— Adams's  "Roman  Antiquities,"  Glas- 
grow  ed.,  182,'5,  p.   27. 

»  Suetonius,  "Vit.  Octavianus."  c.  3  and  4. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS  298 

IV.     The  obligation  not  to  marry  in  the  gens. 
V.     The  possession  of  lands  in  common, 

VI.     Reciprocal  obligations  of  help,  defense,  and  re- 
dress of  injuries. 
VII.     The  right  to  bear  the  gentile  name. 
VIII.     The  right  to  adopt  strangers  into  the  gens. 

IX.     The  right  to  elect  and  depose  its  chiefs;  query. 

These  several  characteristics  will  be  considered  in  the 
order  named. 

1.     Mutual  rights  of  succession  to  the  property  of  de- 
ceased gentiles. 

When  the  law  of  the  Twelve  Tables  was  promulgated 
C451  B.  C),  the  ancient  rule,  which  presumptively  dis- 
tributed the  inheritance  among  the  gentiles,  had  been 
superseded  by  more  advanced  regulations.  The  estate  of 
an  intestate  now  passed,  first,  to  his  sui  heredes,  that  is, 
to  his  children ;  and,  in  default  of  children,  to  his  lineal 
descendants  through  males.  ^  The  living  children  took 
equally,  and  the  children  of  deceased  sons  took  the  share 
of  their  father  equally.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  inher- 
itance remained  in  the  gens ;  the  children  of  the  female 
descendants  of  the  intestate,  who  belonged  to  other  gen- 
tes,  being  excluded.  Second,  if  there  were  no  sui  her- 
edes, by  the  same  law,  the  inheritance  then  passed  to  the 
agnates.  ^  The  agnatic  kindred  comprised  all  those  per- 
sons who  could  trace  their  descent  through  males  from 
the  same  common  ancestor  with  the  intestate.  In  virtue 
of  such  a  descent  they  all  bore  the  same  gentile  name,  fe- 
males as  well  as  males,  and  were  nearer  in  degree  to  the 
decedent  than  the  remaining  gentiles.  The  agnates  near- 
est in  degree  had  the  preference ;  first,  the  brothers  and 
unmarried  sisters ;  second,  the  paternal  uncles  and  un- 
married aunts  of  the  intestate,  and  so  on  until  the  agnatic 
relatives  were  exhausted.  Third,  if  there  were  no  agnates 
of  the  intestate,  the  same  law  called  the  gentiles  to  the 
inheritance.  ^      This  seems  at  first  sight  remarkable ;  be- 


I  Gaius,    "Institutes,"    lib.    Hi,    1   and   2.     The   wlf«    was  a   co- 
heiress with   the  children, 
a  lb.,  lib.   ill.  9. 
J  Galus.   "Inst.,"   lib.   HI,  17. 


294  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

cause  the  children  of  the  intestate's  sisters  were  excluded 
from  the  inheritance,  and  the  preference  given  to  gentile 
kinsmen  so  remote  that  their  relationship  to  the  intestate 
could  not  be  traced  at  all,  and  only  existed  in  virtue  of 
an  ancient  lineage  preserved  by  a  common  gentile  name. 
The  reason,  however,  is  apparent ;  the  children  of  the 
sisters  of  the  intestate  belonged  to  another  gens,  and  the 
gentile  right  predominated  over  greater  nearness  of  con- 
sanguinity, because  the  principle  which  retained  the  prop- 
erty in  the  gens  was  fundamental.  It  is  a  plain  infer- 
ence from  the  law  of  the  Twelve  Tables  that  inheritance 
began  in  the  inverse  order,  and  that  the  three  classes  of 
heirs  represent  the  three  successive  rules  of  inheritance ; 
namely,  first,  the  gentiles ;  second,  the  agnates,  among 
whom  were  the  children  of  the  decedent  after  descent  was 
changed  to  the  male  line ;  and  third,  the  children,  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  remaining  agnates. 

A  female,  by  her  marriage,  suffered  what  was  tech- 
nically called  a  loss  of  franchise  or  capital  diminution 
(dcminutio  capitis),  by  which  she  forfeited  her  agnatic 
rights.  Here  again  the  reason  is  apparent.  If  after  her 
marriage  she  could  inherit  as  an  agnate  it  would  transfer 
the  property  inherited  from  her  own  gens  to  that  of  her 
husband.  An  unmarried  sister  could  inherit,  but  a  mar- 
ried sister  could  not. 

With  our  knowledge  of  the  archaic  principles  of  the 
gens,  we  are  enabled  to  glance  backward  to  the  time 
when  descent  in  the  Latin  gens  was  in  the  female  line, 
when  property  was  inconsiderable,  and  distributed 
among  the  gentiles :  not  necessarily  within  the  life-time 
of  the  Latin  gens,  for  its  existence  reached  back  of  the 
period  of  their  occupation  of  Ttalv.  That  the  Roman 
gens  had  passed  from  the  archaic  into  its  historical  form 
is  partially  indicated  by  the  reversion  of  property  in  cer- 
tain cases  to  the  gentiles.  * 

I  A  singular  que.««tlon  arose  hetween  the  Marf^elli  and  Claudll, 
two  famUles  of  the  Claudlan  Rens.  with  respect  to  the  estate 
of  the  son  of  a  freedman  of  the  MareeUI:  the  former  claiming 
by  rlpht  of  family,  and  the  latter  by  right  of  ^ens.  The  law  of 
the  Twelve  Tables  pave  the  estate  of  a  freedman  to  his  former 
master,  who  bv  the  act  of  manumission  became  his  patron, 
provided    he    died    Intestate,    and   without    "sui    heredes;"    but    It 


THE  ROMAN  GENS  291? 

"The  right  of  succeeding  to  the  property  of  members 
who  died  without  kin  and  intestate,"  Niebuhr  remarks, 
"was  that  which  lasted  the  longest;  so  long  indeed,  as 
to  engage  the  attention  of  the  jurists,  and  even= — though 
assuredly  not  as  anything  more  than  a  historical  ques- 
tion—  that  of  Gains,  the  manuscript  of  whom  is  unfor- 
tunately illegible  in  this  part."  ^ 
11.     A  common  burial  place. 

The  sentiment  of  gentilism  seems  to  have  been  stronger 
in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism  than  in  earlier  condi- 
tions, through  a  higher  organization  of  society,  and 
through  mental  and  moral  advancement.  Each  gens  usu- 
ally had  a  burial  place  for  the  exclusive  use  of  its  mem- 
bers as  a  place  of  sepulture.  A  few  illustrations  will  ex- 
hibit Roman  usages  with  respect  to  burial. 

Appius  Claudius,  the  chief  of  the  Claudian  gens,  re- 
moved from  Regili,  a  town  of  the  Sabines,  to  Rome  in 
the  time  of  Romulus,  where  in  due  time  he  was  made  a 
senator,  and  thus  a  patrician.  He  brought  with  him  the 
Claudian  gens,  and  such  a  number  of  clients  that  his  ac- 
cession to  Rome  was  regarded  as  an  important  event. 
Suetonius  remarks  that  the  gens  received  from  the  state 
lands  upon  the  Anio  for  their  clients,  and  a  burial  place 
for  themselves  near  the  capitol.  ^  This  statement  seems 
to  imply  that  a  common  burial  place  was,  at  that  time, 
considered  indispensable  to  a  gens.  The  Claudii,  having 
abandoned  their  Sabine  connection  and  identified  them- 
selves with  the  Roman  people,  received  both  a  grant  of 

did  not  reach  the  case  of  the  son  of  a  freedman.  The  fact  that 
the  Claudii  were  a  patrician  family,  and  the  Maroelli  were  not, 
could  not  affect  the  question.  The  freedman  did  not  acquire 
gentile  rights  in  his  master's  gens  by  his  manumission,  al- 
though he  was  allowed  to  adopt  the  gentile  name  of  his  patron; 
as  Cicero's  freedman,  Tyro,  was  called  M.  Tullius  Tyro.  It  Is 
not  known  how  the  case,  which  is  mentioned  by  Cicero  ("De 
Oratore,"  1,  39),  and  commented  upon  by  Long  (Smith's  "Die. 
Gk.  &  Rom.  Antiq.,  Art.  Gens"),  and  Niebuhr,  was  decided;  but 
the  latter  suggests  that  it  was  probably  against  the  Claudii 
("Hist,  of  Rome,"  1,  245,  "note").  It  is  difficult  to  discover  how 
any  claim  whatever  could  be  urged  by  the  Claudii;  or  any  by 
the  Marcelli,  except  through  an  extension  of  the  patronal  right 
by  judicial  construction.  It  is  a  note-Arorthy  case,  because  It 
shows  how  strongly  the  mutual  rights  with  respect  to  the  In- 
heritance  of  property   were   Intrenched  In  the  gens. 

I    "History  of  Rome,"  1,   242. 

I  —Suet..  "Vlt.  Tiberius,"  cap.  1. 


2y6  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

lands  and  a  burial  place  for  the  gens,  to  place  them  in 
equality  of  condition  with  the  Roman  gentes.  The  trans- 
action reveals  a  custom  of  the  times. 

The  family  tomb  had  not  entirely  superseded  that  of 
the  gens  in  the  time  of  Julius  Caesar,  as  was  illustrated 
by  the  case  of  Quintilius  Varus,  who^  having  lost  his 
army  in  Germany,  destroyed  himself,  and  his  body  fell 
into  the  hands  of  the  enemy.  The  half-burned  body  of 
Varus,  says  Paterculus,  was  mangled  by  the  savage  ene- 
emy ;  his  head  was  cut  off,  and  brought  to  Maroboduus, 
and  by  him  having  been  sent  to  Caesar,  was  at  length 
honored  with  burial  in  the  gentile  sepulchre.  ^ 

In  his.  treatise  on  the  laws,  Cicero  refers  to  the  usages 
of  his  own  times  in  respect  to  burial  in  the  following 
language :  now  the  sacredness  of  burial  places  is  so  great 
that  it  is  affirmed  to  be  wrong  to  perform  the  burial  in- 
dependently of  the  sacred  rites  of  the  gens.  Thus  in  the 
time  of  our  ancestors  A.  Torquatus  decided  respecting 
the  Popilian  gens.  ^  The  purport  of  the  statement  is  that 
it  was  a  religious  duty  to  bury  the  dead  with  sacred  rites, 
and  when  possible  in  land  belonging  to  the  gens.  It  fur- 
ther appears  that  cremation  and  inhumation  were  both 
practiced  prior  to  the  promulgation  of  the  Twelve  Tables, 
which  prohibited  the  burying  or  burning  of  dead  bodies 
within  the  city.  '  The  columbarium,  which  would  usual- 
ly accommodate  several  hundred  urns,  was  eminently 
adapted  to  the  uses  of  a  gens.  In  the  time  of  Cicero  the 
gentile  organization  had  fallen  into  decadence,  but  cer- 
tain usages  peculiar  to  it  had  remained,  and  that  respect- 
ing a  common  burial  place  among  the  number.  The  fam- 
ily tomb  began  to  take  the  place  of  that  of  the  gens,  as 
the  families  in  the  ancient  gentes  rose  into  complete  au- 
tonomy ;  nevertheless,  remains  of  ancient  gentile  usages 
with  respect  to  burial  manifested  themselves  in  various 
ways,  and  were  still  fresh  in  the  history  of  the  past. 
III.     Common  sacred  rites:  sacra  (^entilkia. 

The  Roman  sacra  embody  our  idea  of  divine  worship, 


I   — "VeUeliis  Patcroiilu.s,"  11.   119. 

a  — "De  Leg.,"  11.  22. 

3  Cloero,  'Oe  T.pg-.,"  11,  23. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS  397 

and  were  either  public  or  private.  Religious  rites  per- 
formed by  a  gens  were  called  sacra  privata,  or  sacra  gen- 
tilicia.  They  wer^  performed  regularly  at  stated  periods 
by  the  gens.  ^  Cases  are  mentioned  in  which  the  ex- 
penses of  maintaining  these  rites  had  become  a  burden 
in  consequence  of  the  reduced  numbers  in  the  gens.  They 
were  gained  and  lost  by  circumstances,  e.  g.,  adoption 
or  marriage.  ^  "That  the  members  of  the  Roman  gens 
had  common  sacred  rites,"  observes  Niebuhr,  "is  well 
known ;  there  were  sacrifices  appointed  for  stated  days 
and  places."  ^  The  sacred  rites,  both  public  and  private, 
were  under  pontifical  regulation  exclusively,  and  not  sub- 
ject to  civil  cognizance.  * 

The  religious  rites  of  the  Romans  seem  to  have  had 
their  primary  connection  with  the  gens  rather  than  the 
family.  A  college  of  pontiffs,  of  curiones,  and  of  augurs, 
with  an  elaborate  system  of  worship  under  these  priest- 
hoods, in  due  time  grew  into  form  and  became  estab- 
lished ;  but  the  system  was  tolerant  and  free.  The  priest- 
hood was  in  the  main  elective.  ^  The  head  of  every  fam- 
ily also  was  the  priest  of  the  household.  The  gentes  of^ 
the  Greeks  and  Romans  were  the  fountains  from  which 
flowed  the  stupendous  mythology  of  the  classical  world. 

In  the  early  days  of  Rome  many  gentes  had  each  their 
own  sacellum  for  the  performance  of  their  religious  rites. 
Several  gentes  had  each  special  sacrifices  to  perform, 
which  had  been  transmitted  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion, and  were  regarded  as  obligatory;  as  those  of  the 
Xautii  to  Minerva,  of  the  Fabii  to  Hercules,  and  of  the 
Horatii  in  expiation  of  the  sororicide  committed  by  Ho- 
ratius.  '     It  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose  to  have  shown 

1  "There  were  certain  sacred  rites  ("sacra  gentUIcla")  which 
belonged  to  a  gens,  to  the  observance  of  which  all  the  members 
of  a  gens,  as  such,  were  bound,  whether  they  were  members  by 
birth,  adoption  or  adrogation.  A  person  was  freed  from  the 
observance  of  such  "sacra,"  and  lost  the  privileges  connected 
with  his  gentile  rights  when  he  lost  his  gens."— Smith's  "Die. 
Antiq.,  Gens." 

2  C'cero,  "Pro  Domo,"  c.  13. 

3  "History  of  Rome,"  1,   241. 

4  Cicero,  "De  Leg.."  ii.   23. 

5  "Dionvsius,"  li,  22. 

6  lb.,  11."  21. 

7  Niebuhr'.s  "History  of  Rome,"  1,  241. 


jj^g  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

generally  that  each  gens  had  its  own  religious  rites  as 
one  of  the  attributes  of  the  organization. 

IV.  The  obligation  not  to  marry  in  the  gens. 
Gentile  regulations  were  customs  having  the  force  of 

law.  The  obligation  not  to  marry  in  the  gens  was  one 
of  the  number.  It  does  not  appear  to  have  been  turned, 
at  a  later  day,  into  a  legal  enactment;  but  evidence  that 
such  was  the  rule  of  the  gens  appears  in  a  number  of 
ways.  The  Roman  genealogies  show  that  marriage  was 
out  of  the  gens,  of  which  instances  have  been  given. 
This,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  archaic  rule  for  reasons 
of  consanguinity.  A  woman  by  her  marriage  forfeited 
her  agnatic  rights,  to  which  rule  there  was  no  exception. 
It  was  to  prevent  the  transfer  of  property  by  marriage 
from  one  gens  to  another,  from  the  gens  of  her  birth  to 
the  gens  of  her  husband.  The  exclusion  of  the  children 
of  a  female  from  all  rights  of  inheritance  from  a  ma- 
ternal uncle  or  maternal  grandfather,  which  followed, 
was  for  the  same  reason.  As  the  female  was  required 
to  marry  out  of  her  gens  her  children  would  be  of  the 
gens  of  their  father,  and  there  could  be  no  privity  of  in- 
heritance between  members  of  different  gentes. 

V.  The  possession  of  lands  in  common. 

The  ownership  of  lands  in  common  was  so  general 
among  barbarous  tribes  that  the  existence  of  the  same 
tenure  among  the  Latin  tribes  is  no  occasion  for  surprise. 
A  portion  of  their  lands  seems  to  have  been  held  in  sev- 
eralty by  individuals  from  a  very  early  period.  No  time 
can  be  assigned  when  this  was  not  the  case ;  but  at  first 
it  was  probably  the  possessory  right  to  lands  in  actual 
occupation,  so  often  before  referred  to,  which  was  rec- 
ognized as  far  back  as  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism. 

Among  the  rustic  Latin  tribes,  lands  were  held  in  com- 
mon by  each  tribe,  other  lands  by  the  gentes,  and  still 
other  by  households. 

Allotments  of  lands  to  individuals  became  common  at 
Rome  in  the  time  of  Romulus,  and  afterwards  quite  gen- 
eral. Varro  and  Dionysius  both  state  that  Romulus  al- 
lotted two  jugera   (about  two  and  a  quarter  acres)  to 


THE  ROMAN  GENS  299 

each  man.  ^  Similar  allotments  are  said  to  have  been 
afterwards  made  by  Numa  and  Servius  Tullius.  They 
were  the  beginnings  of  absolute  ownership  in  severalty, 
and  presuppose  a  settled  life  as  well  as  a  great  advance- 
ment in  intelligence.  It  was  not  only  admeasured  but 
granted  by  the  government,  which  was  very  different 
from  a  possessory  right  in  lands  grow'ing  out  of  an  indi- 
vidual act.  The  idea  of  absolute  individual  ownership  of 
land  was  a  growth  through  experience,  the  complete  at- 
tainment of  which  belongs  to  the  period  of  civilization. 
These  lands,  however,  were  taken  from  those  held  in  com- 
mon by  the  Roman  people.  Gentes,  cutIje  and  tribes  held 
certain  lands  in  common  after  civilization  had  com- 
menced, beyond  those  held  by  individuals  in  severalty. 

Mommsen  remarks  that  "the  Roman  territory  was  di- 
vided in  the  earliest  times  into  a  number  of  clan-districts, 
which  were  subsequently  employed  in  the  formation  of 

the   earliest  rural  wards    (iribits  rnsticae) These 

names  are  not.  like  those  of  the  districts  added  at  a  later 
period,  derived  from  the  localities,  but  are  formed  with- 
out exception  from  the  names  of  the  clans."  ^  Each  gens 
held  an  independent  district,  and  of  necessity  was  local- 
ized upon  it.  This  Avas  a  step  in  advance,  although  it 
was  the  prevailing  practice  not  only  in  the  rural  districts, 
but  also  in  Rome,  for  the  gentes  to  localize  in  separate 
areas.  jNIommsen  further  ol3serves :  "As  each  household 
had  its  own  portion  of  land,  so  the  clan-household  or 
village,  had  clan-lands  belonging  to  it,  which,  as  will  aft- 
erwards be  shown,  were  managed  up  to  a  comparatively 
late  period  after  the  analogy  of  house-lands,  that  is.  on 
the  svstem  of  joint  possession These  clanships,  how- 
ever, were  from  the  beginning  regarded  not  as  independ- 
ent societies,  but  as  integral  parts  of  a  political  com- 
munitv  (ciritas  populi).  This  first  presents  itself  as  an 
aggregate  of  a  number  of  clan-villages  of  the  same  stock, 
language  and  manners,  bound  to  mutual  observance  of 


1  — Varro,  "De  Re  Rustica."  Mb.  !,  cap.  10. 

2  "History  of  Rome,"  1,  62.  Mo  nanus  the  CamiUil.  Galerll, 
LemonU,  PoHii.  Piipinli.  Voltinli.  ApmUii,  Cornelil.  Fabll,  Ho- 
ratli,  Menenil,   Papirli.   RomUil.   HorgU,   Veturli.— lb.,  p.   63. 


300  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

law  and  mutual  legal  redress  and  to  united  action  in  ag- 
gression and  defense."  ^  Clan  is  here  used  by  Momm- 
sen,  or  his  translator,  in  the  place  of  gens,  and  elsewhere 
canton  is  used  in  the  place  of  tribe,  which  are  the  more 
singular  since  the  Latin  language  furnishes  specific  terms 
for  these  organizations  which  have  become  historical. 
Mommsen  represents  the  Latin  tribes  anterior  to  the 
founding  of  Rome  as  holding  lands  by  households,  by 
gentes  and  by  tribes ;  and  he  further  shows  the  ascend- 
ing series  of  social  organizations  in  these  tribes ;  a  com- 
parison of  which  with  those  of  the  Iroquois,  discloses 
their  close  parallelism,  namely,  the  gens,  tribe  and  con- 
federacy. ^  The  phratry  is  not  mentioned  although  it 
probably  existed.  The  household  referred  to  could 
scarcely  have  been  a  single  family.  It  is  not  unlikely  that 
it  was  composed  of  related  families  who  occupied  a  joint- 

1  "History  of  Rome,"  i,  63. 

2  "A  fixed  local  centre  was  quite  as  necessary  in  the  case  of 
such  a  canton  as  in  that  of  a  clanship;  but  as  the  members  of 
the  clan,  or,  in  other  words,  the  constituent  elements  of  the 
canton  dwelt  In  villages,  the  centre  of  the  canton  can- 
not have  been  a  town  or  place  of  joint  settlement  in  the 
strict  sense.  It  must,  on  the  contrary,  have  been  simply  a 
place  of  common  assembly,  containing  the  seat  of  justice  and 
the  common  sanctuary  of  the  canton,  where  the  members  of 
the  canton  met  every  eighth  day  for  purposes  of  intercourse  and 
amusement,  and  where,  in  case  of  war,  they  obtained  a  safer 
shelter  for  themselves  and  their  cattle  than  in  the  villages;  In 
ordinary  circumstances  this  place  of  meeting  was  not  at  all  or 
but  scantily  inhabited.  .  .  These  cantons  accordingly,  having 
their  rendezvous  in  some  stronghold,  and  including  a  certain 
number  of  clanships,  form  the  primitive  political  unities  with 
which  Italian  history  begins.  .  .  .  All  af  these  cantons  were  In 
primitive  times  politically  sovereign,  and  each  of  them  waa 
governed  by  its  prince  with  the  co-operation  of  the  council  of 
elders  and  the  assembly  of  warriors.  Nevertheless  the  feeling 
of  fellowship  based  on  community  of  descent  and  of  language 
not  only  pervaded  the  whole  of  them,  but  manifested  itself  In 
an  important  religious  and  political  institution— the  perpetual 
league  of  the  collective  Latin  cantons."— "Hist,  of  Rome,"  i.  64- 
66.  The  statement  that  the  canton  or  tribe  was  governed  by 
its  prince  with  the  co-operation  of  the  council,  etc.,  is  a  re- 
versal of  the  correct  statement,  and  therefore  misleading.  We 
must  suppose  that  the  military  commander  held  an  elective 
office,  and  that  he  was  deposable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  constit- 
uency who  elected  him.  Further  than  this,  there  is  no  ground 
for  assuming  that  he  possessed  any  civil  functions.  It  is  a 
reasonable,  if  not  a  necessary  conclusion,  therefore,  that  the 
tribe  was  governed  by  a  council  composed  of  the  chiefs  of  the 
gentes,  and  by  an  assembly  of  the  warriors,  with  the  co-opera- 
tion of  a  general  military  commander,  who«e  functions  were 
exclusively  military.  It  was  a  government  of  three  powetB, 
common  in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  and  identified  with 
Institutions   essentially   democratical. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS  301 

tenement  house,  and  practiced  communism  in  living  in 
the  household. 

VI.  Reciprocal  obligations  of  help,  defense  and  redress 
of  injuries. 
During  the  period  of  barbarism  the  dependence  of 
the  gentiles  upon  each  other  for  the  protection  of  personal 
rights  would  be  constant ;  but  after  the  establishment  of 
political  society,  the  gentilis,  now  a  citizen,  would  turn 
to  the  law  and  to  the  state  for  the  protection  before 
administered  by  his  gens.  This  feature  of  the  ancient 
system  would  be  one  of  the  first  to  disappear  under  the 
new.  Accordingly  but  slight  references  to  these  mutual 
obligations  are  found  in  the  early  authors.  It  does  not 
follow,  however,  that  the  gentiles  did  not  practice  these 
duties  to  each  other  in  the  previous  period ;  on  the 
contrary,  the  inference  that  thev  did  is  a  necessary  one 
from  the  principles  of  the  gentile  organization.  Remains 
of  these  special  usages  appear,  under  special  circumstan- 
ces, well  down  in  the  historical  period.  When  Appius 
Claudius  was  cast  into  prison  (about  432  B.  C),  Caius 
Claudius,  then  at  enmity  with  him.  put  on  mourning,  as 
well  as  the  whole  Claudian  gens.  -^  A  calamity  or  disgrace 
falling  upon  one  member  of  the  body  was  felt  and  shared 
by  all.  During  the  second  Punic  war,  Niebuhr  remarks, 
"the  gentiles  united  to  ransom  their  fellows  who  were  in 
captivity,  and  were  forbidden  to  do  it  by  the  senate.  This 
obligation  is  an  essential  characteristic  of  the  gens."* 
In  the  case  of  Camillus,  against  whom  a  tribune  had 
lodged  an  accusation  on  account  of  the  Veientian  spoil, 
he  summoned  to  his  house  before  the  day  appointed  for 
his  trial  his  tribes-men  and  clients  to  ask  their  advice, 
and  he  received  for  an  answer  that  they  would  collect 
whatever  sum  he  v.'as  condemned  to  pay;  but  to  clear 
him  was  impossible.  '  The  active  principle  of  gentilism 
is  plainlv  illustrated  in  these  cases.  Niebuhr  further  re- 
marks that  the  obligation  to  assist  their  indigent  gentiles 
rested  on  the  members  of  the  Roman  gens.  * 

I  — Livy,  vi,   20. 

a  "History  of  Rome,"  1,  242. 

3— Llvy,  V.   32.  ..    ,«. 

4  "History  of  Rome,"  i,  242:  citing  Dionysius,  li,  10. 


602  ANCIENT  SOCIETT 

VII.    The  right  to  bear  the  gentile  name. 

This  followed  necessarily  from  the  nature  of  the  g^ens. 
All  such  persons  as  were  born  sons  or  daughters  of  a  male 
member  of  the  gens  were  themselves  members,  and  of 
right  entitled  to  bear  the  gentile  name.  In  the  lapse  of 
time  it  was  found  impossible  for  the  members  of  a  gens 
to  trace  their  descent  back  to  the  founder,  and,  conse- 
quently, for  different  families  within  the  gens  to  find  their 
connection  through  a  later  common  ancestor.  Whilst  this 
inability  proved  the  antiquity  of  the  lineage,  it  was  no 
evidence  that  these  families  had  not  sprung  from  a  remote 
common  ancestor.  The  fact  that  persons  were  born  in  the 
gens,  and  that  each  could  trace  his  descent  through  a 
series  of  acknowledged  members  of  the  gens,  was 
sufficient  evidence  of  gentile  descent,  and  strong  evidence 
of  the  blood  connection  of  all  the  gentiles.  But  some 
investigators,  Niebuhr  among  the  number,  ^  have  denied 
the  existence  of  any  blood  relationship  between  the 
families  in  a  gens,  since  they  could  not  show  a  connec- 
tion through  a  common  ancestor.  This  treats  the  gens  as 
a  purely  fictitious  organization,  and  is  therefore  unten- 
able. Niebuhr's  inference  against  a  blood  connection 
from  Cicero's  definition  is  not  sustainable.  If  the  right 
of  a  person  to  bear  the  gentile  name  were  questioned, 
proof  of  the  right  would  consist,  not  in  tracing  his 
descent  from  the  genarch,  but  from  a  number  of  acknowl- 
edged ancestors  within  the  gens.  Without  written  records 
the  number  of  generations  through  which  a  pedigree 
might  be  traced  would  be  limited.  Few  families  in  the 
same  gens  might  not  be  able  to  find  a  common  ancestor, 
but  it  would  not  follow  that  they  were  not  of  common 
descent  from  some  remote  ancestor  within  the  gens.' 

After  descent  was  changed  to  the  male  line  the  ancient 
names  of  the  gentes,  which  not  unlikely  were  taken'  from 

1  "History  of  Rome,"  1,  240. 

2  "Nevertheless,  affinity  In  blood  always  appeared  to  the 
Romans  to  lie  at  the  root  of  the  connection  between  the  mem- 
bers of  the  clan,  and  still  more  between  those  of  a  family;  and 
the  Roman  community  can  only  have  Interfered  with  these 
groups  to  a  limited  extent  consistent  with  the  retention  of 
their  fundamental  character  of  affinity."— Mommsen's  "History 
of  Rome,"  1,  103. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS  303 

animals,^  or  inanimate  objects,  gave  place  to  personal 
names.  Some  individual,  distinguished  in  the  history  of 
the  gens,  became  its  eponymous  ancestor,  and  this  person, 
as  elsewhere  suggested,  was  not  unlikely  superseded  by 
another  at  long  intervals  of  time.  When  a  gens  divided 
in  consequence  of  separation  in  area,  one  division  would 
be  apt  to  take  a  new  name  .  but  such  a  change  of  name 
would  not  disturb  the  kinship  upon  which  the  gens  was 
founded.  When  it  is  considered  that  the  lineage  of  the 
Roman  gentes,  under  changes  of  names,  ascended  to  the 
time  when  the  Latins,  Greeks  and  Sanskrit  speaking 
people  of  India  were  one  people,  without  reaching  its 
source,  some  conception  of  its  antiquity  may  be  gained. 
The  loss  of  the  gentile  name  at  any  time  by  any  individual 
was  the  most  improbable  of  all  occurrences ;  consequently 
its  possession  was  the  highest  evidence  that  he  shared 
with  his  gentiles  the  same  ancient  lineage.  There  was 
one  way,  and  but  one,  of  adulterating  gentile  descent, 
namely :  by  the  adoption  of  strangers  in  blood  into  the 
gens.  This  practice  prevailed,  but  the  extent  of  it  was 
small.  If  Niebuhr  had  claimed  that  the  blood  relationship 
of  the  gentiles  had  become  attenuated  by  lapse  of  time  to 
an  inappreciable  quantity  between  some  of  them,  no 
objection  could  be  taken  to  his  position;  but  a  denial  of 
all  relationship  which  turns  the  gens  into  a  fictitious 
aggregation  of  persons,  without  any  bond  of  union, 
controverts  the  principle  upon  which  the  gens  came  into 
existence,  and  which  perpetuated  it  through  three  entire 
ethnical  periods. 

Elswhere  I  have  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
gens  came  in  with  a  system  of  consanguinity  which 
reduced  all  consanguinei  to  a  small  number  of  categories, 
and  retained  their  descendants  indefinitely  in  the  same. 
The  relationships  of  persons  were  easily  traced,  no  matter 

I  It  Is  a  curious  fact  that  Clelsthenes  of  Argos  changed  the 
names  of  the  three  Dorian  tribes  of  Sicyon,  one  to  Hyatae, 
signifying  in  the  singular  "a  boar;"  another  to  Oneatse,  sig- 
nifying "an  ass,"  g^nd  a  third  to  Choereatse,  signifying  "a  little 
pig."  They  were  Intended  as  an  insult  to  the  Sicyonlans;  but 
they  remained  during  his  lifetime,  and  for  sixty  years  after- 
wards. Did  the  Idea  of  these  animal  names  come  down  throujfh 
tradition?— See  Grote's  "History  of  Greece,"  111,  33,  36. 


304  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

how  remote  their  actual  common  ancestor.  In  an 
Iroquois  gens  of  five  hundred  persons,  all  its  members 
are  related  to  each  other  and  each  person  knows  or  can 
find  his  relationship  to  every  other;  so  that  the  fact  of  kin 
was  perpetually  present  in  the  gens  of  the  archaic  period. 
With  the  rise  of  the  monogamian  family,  a  new  and 
totally  different  system  of  consanguinity  came  in,  under 
which  the  relationships  between  collaterals  soon  disap- 
peared. Such  was  the  system  of  the  Latin  and  Grecian 
tribes  at  the  commencement  of  the  historical  period.  That 
which  preceded  it  was,  presumptively  at  least,  Turanian, 
under  which  the  relationships  of  the  gentiles  to  each 
other  would  have  been  known. 

After  the  decadence  of  the  gentile  organization  com- 
menced, new  gentes  ceased  to  form  by  the  old  process  of 
segmentation ;  and  some  of  those  existing  died  out.  This 
tended  to  enhance  the  value  of  gentile  descent  as  a 
lineage.  In  the  times  of  the  empire,  new  families  were 
constantly  establishing  themselves  in  Rome  from  foreign 
parts,  and  assuming  gentile  names  to  gain  social  ad- 
vantages.. This  practice  being  considered  an  abuse,  the 
Emperor  Claudius  (A.  D.  40-54)  prohibited  foreigners 
from  assuming  Roman  names,  especially  those  of  the 
ancient  gentes,  ^  Roman  families,  belonging  to  the 
historical  gentes,  placed  the  highest  value  upon  their 
lineages  both  under  the  republic  and  the  empire. 

All  the  members  of  a  gens  were  free,  and  equal  in  their 
rights  and  privileges,  the  poorest  as  well  as  the  richest, 
the  distinguished  as  well  as  the  obscure ;  and  they  shared 
equally  in  whatever  dignity  the  gentile  name  conferred 
which  they  inherited  as  a  birthright.  Liberty,  equality 
and  fraternity  were  cardinal  principles  of  the  Roman 
gens,  not  less  certainly  than  of  the  Grecian,  and  of  the 
American  Indian. 

VIII.     The  right  of  adopting  strangers  in  blood  into  the 
gens. 
In  the  times  of  the  republic,  and  also  of   the    empire, 
adoption  into  the  family,  which  carried  the  person  into  the 

I    Sueton.,  "Vlt,  Claudius,"  cap,  25. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS  306 

gens  of  the  family,  was  practiced ;  but  it  was  attended 
with  formaHties  which  rendered  it  difficult.  A  person  who 
had  no  children,  and  who  was  past  the  age  to  expect 
them,  might  adopt  a  son  with  the  consent  of  the  pontifices, 
and  of  the  comitia  curiata.  The  college  of  pontiffs  were 
entitled  to  be  consulted  lest  the  sacred  rites  of  the  family, 
from  which  the  adopted  person  was  taken,  might  thereby 
be  impaired :  ^  as  also  the  assembly,  because  the  adopted 
person  would  receive  the  gentile  name,  and  might  inherit 
the  estate  of  his  adoptive  father.  From  the  precautions 
which  remained  in  the  time  of  Cicero,  the  inference  is 
reasonable  that  under  the  previous  system,  which  was 
purely  gentile,  the  restrictions  must  have  been  greater 
and  the  instances  rare.  It  is  not  probable  that  adoption 
in  the  early  period  was  allowed  without  the  consent  of  the 
gens,  and  of  the  curia  to  which  the  gens  belonged ;  and 
if  so.  the  number  adopted  must  have  been  limited.  Few 
details  remain  of  the  ancient  usages  with  respect  to 
adoption: 

IX.  The  right  of  electing  and  deposing  its  chiefs;  query. 
The  incompleteness  of  our  knowledge  of  the  Roman 
gentes  is  show^n  quite  plainly  by  the  absence  of  direct 
information  with  respect  to  the  tenure  of  the  office  of 
chief  iprinceps).  Before  the  institution  of  political 
society  each  gens  had  its  chief,  and  probably  more  than 
one.  When  the  office  became  vacant  it  was  necessarily 
filled,  either  by  the  election  of  one  of  the  gentiles,  as 
among  the  Iroquois,  or  taken  by  hereditary  right.  But 
the  absence  of  any  proof  of  hereditary  right,  and  the 
presence  of  the  elective  principle  with  respect  to  nearly 
all  offices  under  the  republic,  and  before  that,  under  the 
reges,  leads  to  the  inference  that  hereditary  right  was 
alien  to  the  institutions  of  the  Latin  tribes.  The  highest 
office,  that  of  rex,  was  elective,  the  office  of  senator  was 
elective  or  by  appointment,  and  that  of  consuls  and  of 
inferior  magistrates.  It  varied  with  respect  to  the  college 
of  pontiffs  instituted  by  Numa.  At  first  the  pontiffs 
themselves  filled  vacancies  by  election.     Livy  speaks  of 

»   Clc»»rn,   "Pro  Pomo,"  cap.   13, 


SOe  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

the  election  of  a  pontifex  maximus  by  the  comitia  about 
212  B.  C.  ^  By  the  lex  Domitia  the  right  to  elect  the 
members  of  the  several  colleges  of  pontiffs  and  of  priests 
was  transferred  to  the  people,  but  the  law  was  subsequent- 
ly modified  by  Sulla. '  The  active  presence  of  the  elective 
principle  among  the  Latin  gentes  when  they  first  come 
under  histoiical  notice,  and  from  that  time  through  the 
period  of  the  republic,  furnishes  strong  grounds  for  the 
inference  that  the  office  of  chief  was  elective  in  tenure. 
The  democratic  features  of  their  social  system,  which 
present  themselves  at  so  many  points,  were  inherited 
from  the  gentes.  It  would  require  positive  evidence  that 
the  office  of  chief  passed  by  hereditary  right  to  over- 
come the  presumption  against  it.  The  right  to  elect  car- 
ries with  it  the  right  to  depose  from  office,  where  the 
tenure  is  for  life. 

These  chiefs,  or  a  selection  from  them,  composed  the 
council  of  the  several  Latin  tribes  before  the  founding 
of  Rome,  which  was  the  principal  instrument  of  govern- 
ment. Traces  of  the  three  powers  co-ordinated  in  the 
government  appear  among  the  Latin  tribes  as  they  did 
in  the  Grecian,  namely :  the  council  of  chiefs,  the  assembly 
of  the  people,  to  which  we  must  suppose  the  more  im- 
portant public  measures  were  submitted  for  adoption  or 
rejection,  and  the  military  commander.  Mommsen  re- 
marks that  "All  of  these  cantons  [tribes]  were  in  primi- 
tive times  politically  sovereign,  and  each  of  them  was 
governed  by  its  prince,  and  the  co-operation  of  the  coun- 
cil of  elders,  and'  the  assembly  of  the  warriors." '  The 
order  of  Mommsen's  statement  should  be  reversed,  and 
the  statement  qualified.  This  council,  from  its  functions 
and  from  its  central  position  in  their  social  system,  of 
which  it  was  a  growth,  held  of  necessity  the  supreme 
power  in  civil  affairs.  It  was  the  council  that  governed, 
and  not  the  military  commander.  "^In  all  the  cities  be- 
longing to  civilized  nations  on  the  coasts,  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean," Niebuhr  observes,  "a  senate  was  a  no  less  es- 

I       LIvy,     XXV,  5. 

1  Smith's   "Die,  Art.   Pontlf«x." 

3  "History  of  Rome,"  1,  6«. 


THE  ROMAN  GENS  807 

sential  and  indispensable  part  of  the  state,  than  a  popular 
assembly ;  it  was  a  select  body  of  elder  citizens ;  such  a 
council,  says  Aristotle,  there  always  is,  whether  the  coun- 
cil be  aristocratical  or  democratical ;  even  in  oligarchies, 
be  the  number  of  sharers  in  the  sovereignty  ever  so  small, 
certain  councilors  are  appointed  for  preparing  public 
measures."  ^  The  senate  of  political  society  succeeded 
the  council  of  chiefs  of  gentile  society.  Romulus  formed 
the  first  Roman  senate  of  a  hundred  elders ;  and  as  there 
were  then  but  a  hundred  gentes,  the  inference  is  substan- 
tially conclusive  that  they  were  the  chiefs  of  these  gentes. 
The  oflfice  was  for  life,  and  non-hereditary ;  whence  the 
final  inference,  that  the  office  of  chief  was  at  the  time 
elective.  Had  it  been  otherwise  there  is  every  proba- 
bility that  the  Rom.an  senate  would  have  been  instituted 
as  an  hereditarv  bodv.  Evidence  of  the  essentially  demo- 
cratic constitution  of  ancient  society  meets  us  at  many 
points,  which  fact  has  failed  to  find  its  way  into  the  mod- 
ern historical  expositions  of  Grecian  and  Roman  gentile 
society. 

With  respect  to  the  number  of  persons  in  a  Roman 
gens,  we  arc  fortunately  not  without  some  information. 
About  474  B.  C.  the  Fabian  gens  proposed  to  the  senate 
to  undertake  the  Veientian  war  as  a  gens,  which  they 
said  required  a  constant  rather  than  a  large  force.  ' 
Their  offer  was  accepted,  and  they  marched  out  of  Rome 
three  hundred  and  six  soldiers,  all  patricians,  amid  the 
applause  of  their  countrymen. '  After  a  series  of  suc- 
cesses they  were  finally  cut  off  to  a  man  through  an  am- 
buscade. But  they  left  behind  them  at  Rome  a  single 
male  under  the  age  of  pu'berty,  who  alone  remained  to 
perpetuate  the  Fabian  gens.*  It  seems  hardly  credible 
that  three  hundred  should  have  left  in  their  families  but 
a  single  male  child,  below  the  age  of  puberty,  but  such 


I   lb.,  «.  258. 

i  Llvy.      U.    48. 

1  lb..  !1.  49. 

4  Trecentos  sey,  perlsse  satis  convenit:  unum  prope  puD«Hc*m 
aetate  reUctum  stlrpem  gente  Fablae,  dubllsque  rebus  popuH 
Romanl  sepe  domi  beUlque  vel  maximum  futurum  auxlllum.— 
Livy,     11.   50;   and   Bee  Ovid,   "Faitl,"  11,   198. 


508  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

is  the  statement.  This  number  of  persons  would  indicate 
an  equal  number  of  females,  who,  witli  the  children  of 
the  males,  would  give  an  aggregate  of  at  least  seven  hun- 
dred members  of  the  Fabian  gens. 

Although  the  rights,  obligations  and  functions  of  the 
Roman  gens  have  been  inadequately  presented,  enough 
lias  been  adduced  to  show  that  this  organization  was  the 
source  of  their  social,  governmental  and  religious  activi- 
ties. As  the  unit  of  their  social  system  it  projects  its 
character  upon  the  higher  organizations  into  which  it 
entered  as  a  constituent.  A  much  fuller  knowledge  of 
the  Roman  gens  than  we  now  possess  is  essential  to  a 
full  comprehension  of  Roman  institutions  in  their  origin 
and  development. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE   ROMAN    CURIA,    TRIBE  AND    POPULUS 

Having  considered  the  Roman  gens,  it  remains  to  take 
up  the  curia  composed  of  several  gentes,  the  tribe  com- 
posed of  several  curiae,  and  lastly  the  Roman  people  com- 
posed of  several  tribes.  In  pursuing  the  subject  the  in- 
quiry will  be  limited  to  the  constitution  of  society  as  it 
appeared  from  the  time  of  Romulus  to  that  of  Servius 
TuUius,  with  some  notice  of  the  changes  which  occurred 
in  the  early  period  of  the  republic  while  the  gentile  sys- 
tem was  giving  way.  and  the  new  political  system  was 
being  established. 

It  will  be  found  that  two  governmental  organizations 
were  in  existence  for  a  time,  side  by  side,  as  among  the 
Athenians,  one  going  out  and  the  other  coming  in.  The 
first  was  a  society  (societas),  founded  upon  the  gentes; 
and  the  other  a  state  (ckntas),  founded  upon  territory 
and  upon  property,  which  was  gradually  supplanting  the 
former.  A  government  in  a  transitional  stage  is  neces- 
sarily complicated,  and  therefore  difficult  to  be  under- 
stood. These  changes  were  not  violent  but  gradual,  com- 
mencing with  Romulus  and  substantially  completed, 
though  not  perfected,  by  Servius  Tullius ;  thus  embrac- 
ing a  supposed  period  of  nearly  two  hundred  years, 
crowded  with  events  of  great  moment  to  the  infant  com- 
monwealth. In  order  to  follow  the  history  of  the  gentes 
to  the  overthrow  of  their  influence  in  the  state  it  will  be 
necessary,  after  considering  the  curia,  tribe  and  nation, 
to  explain  briefly^  the  new  political  system.  The  last  will 
form  the  subject  of  the  ensuing  chapter. 

soo 


310  ANCIENT  SOClETf 

Gentile  society  among  the  Romans  exhibits  four  stages 
of  organization :  first,  the  gens,  which  was  a  body  of  con- 
sanguinei  and  the  unit  of  the  social  system  ;  second,  the 
curia,  analogous  to  the  Grecian  phratry,  which  consisteil 
of  ten  gentes  united  in  a  higher  corporate  body ;  third, 
the  tribe,  consisting  of  ten  curiae,  which  possessed  some 
of  the  attributes  of  a  nation  under  gentile  institutions ; 
and  fourth,  the  Roman  people  (Populus  Romanus) ,  con- 
sisting, in  the  time  of  TuUus  Hostilius,  of  three  such 
tribes  united  by  coalescence  in  one  gentile  society,  em- 
bracing three  hundred  gentes.  There  are  facts  warrant- 
ing the  conclusion  that  all  the  Italian  tribes  were  simi- 
larly organized  at  the  commencement  of  the  historical 
period ;  but  with  this  difference,  perhaps,  that  the  Roman 
curia  was  a  more  advanced  organization  than  the  Grecian 
phratry,  or  the  corresponding  phratry  of  the  remaining 
Italian  tribes;  and  that  the  Roman  tribe,  by  constrained 
enlargement,  became  a  more  comprehensive  organization 
than  in  the  remaining  Italian  stocks.  Some  evidence  in 
support  of  these  statements  will  appear  in  the  sequel. 

Before  the  time  of  Romulus  the  Italians,  in  their  var- 
ious branches,  had  become  a  numerous  people.  The 
large  number  of  petty  tribes,  into  which  they  had  be- 
come subdivided,  reveals  that  state  of  unavoidable  disin- 
tegration which  accompanies  gentile  institutions.  But 
the  federal  principle  had  asserted  itself  among  the  other 
Italian  tribes  as  well  as  the  Latin,  although  it  did  not 
result  in  any  confederacy  that  achieved  important  results. 
Whilst  this  state  of  things  existed,  that  great  movement 
ascribed  to  Romulus  occurred,  namely :  the  concentration 
of  a  hundred  Latin  gentes  on  the  banks  of  the  Tiber, 
which  was  followed  by  a  like  gathering  of  Sabine,  Latin 
and  Etruscan  and  other  gentes,  to  the  additional  number 
of  two  hundred,  ending  in  their  final  coalescence  into 
one  people.  The  foundations  of  Rome  were  thus  laid, 
and  Roman  power  and  civilization  were  to  follow.  It 
was  this  consolidation  of  gentes  and  tribes  under  one 
government,  commenced  by  Romulus  and  completed  by 
his  successors,  that  prepared  the  way  for  the  new  po- 
litical system  —  for  the  transition  from  a  government 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA.  TRIBE  AND  POPULUS  JJl 

based  upon  persons  and  upon  personal  relations,  into  one 
based  upon  territory  and  upon  property. 

It  is  immaterial  whether  either  of  the  seven  so-called 
kings  of  Rome  were  real  or  mythical  persons,  or  whether 
the  legislation  ascribed  to  either  of  them  is  fabulous  or 
true,  so  far  as  this  investigation  is  concerned :  because 
the  facts  with  respect  to  the  ancient  constitution  of  Latin 
society  remained  incorporated  in  Roman  institutions,  and 
thus  came  down  to  the  historical  period.  It  fortunately 
so  happens  that  the  events  of  human  progress  embody 
themselves,  independently  of  particular  men,  in  a  material 
record,  which  is  crystallized  in  institutions,  usages  and 
customs,  and  preserved  in  inventions  and  discoveries. 
Historians,  from  a  sort  of  necessity,  give  to  individuals 
great  prominence  in  the  production  of  events ;  thus  plac- 
ing persons,  who  are  transient,  in  the  place  of  principles, 
which  are  enduring.  The  work  of  society  in  its  totality, 
by  means  of  which  all  progress  occurs,  is  ascribed  far 
too  much  to  individual  men,  and  far  too  little  to  the  pub- 
lic intelligence.  It  will  be  recognized  generally  that  the 
substance  of  human  history  is  bound  up  in  the  growth 
of  ideas,  which  are  wrought  out  by  the  people  and  ex- 
pressed in  their  institutions,  usages,  inventions  and  dis- 
coveries. 

The  numerical  adjustment,  before  adverted  to,  of  ten 
gentes  to  a  curia,  ten  curiae  to  a  tribe,  and  three  tribes 
of  the  Roman  people,  was  a  result  of  legislative  procure- 
ment not  older,  in  the  first  two  tribes,  than  the  time  of 
Romulus.  It  was  made  possible  by  the  accessions  gained 
from  the  surrounding  tribes,  by  solicitation  or  conquest; 
the  fruits  of  which  were  chiefly  incorporated  in  the  Titles 
and  Luceres,  as  they  were  successively  formed.  But  such 
a  precise  numerical  adjustment  could  not  be  permanently 
maintained  through  centuries,  especially  with  respect  to 
the  number  of  gentes  in  each  curia. 

We  have  seen  that  the  Grecian  phratry  was  rather  a 
religious  and  social  than  a  governmental  organization. 
Holding  an  intermediate  position  between  the  gens  and 
the  tribe,  it  would  be  less  important  than  either,  until 
governmental    functions    were    superadded.    -It  appears 


812  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

among  the  Iroquois  in  a  rudimentary  form,  its  social  as 
distinguished  from  its  governmental  character  being  at 
that  early  day  equally  well  marked.  But  the  Roman 
curia,  whatever  it  may  have  been  in  the  previous  period, 
grew  into  an  organization  more  integral  and  govern- 
mental than  the  phratry  of  the  Greeks ;  more  is  known, 
however,  of  the  former  than  of  the  latter.  It  is  probable 
that  the  gentes  comprised  in  each  curia  w^ere,  in  the  main, 
related  gentes ;  and  that  their  reunion  in  a  higher  or- 
ganization was  further  cemented  by  inter-marriages,  the 
gentes  of  the  same  curia  furnishing  each  other  wdth 
wives. 

The  early  writers  give  no  account  of  the  institution  of 
the  curia ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  it  was  a  new  crea- 
tion by  Romulus.  It  is  first  mentioned  as  a  Roman  in- 
stitution in  connection  with  his  legislation,  the  number 
of  curiae  in  two  of  the  tribes  having  been  established  in 
his  time.  The  organization,  as  a  phratry,  had  probably 
existed  among  the  I.atin  tribes  from  time  immemorial 

Livy,  speaking  of  the  favor  with  which  the  Sabine 
women  were  regarded  after  the  establishment  of  peace 
between  the  Sabines  and  Latins  through  their  interven- 
tion, remarks  that  Romulus,  for  this  reason,  when  he  had 
divided  the  people  into  thirty  curiae  bestowed  upon  them 
their  names.^  Dionysius  uses  the  term  phratry  as  the 
equivalent  of  curia,  but  gives  the  latter  also,  *  and  ob- 
serves further,  that  Romulus  divided  the  curiae  into  dec- 
ades, the  ten  in  each  being  of  course  gentes.  ^  In  like 
manner  Plutarch  refers  to  the  fact  that  each  tribe  con- 
tained ten  curiae,  which  some  say,  he  remarks,  were  called 
after  the  Sabine  women.  *  He  is  more  accurate  in  the 
use  of  language  than  Livy  or  Dionysius  in  saying  that 
each  tribe  contained  ten  curiae,  rather  than  that  each  was 
divided  into  ten,  because  the  curiae  were  made  of  gentes 
as  original  unities,  and  not  the  gentes  out  of  a  curia  by 
subdivision.     The  work  performed  by  Romulus  was  the 


1  —  Livy,     1.  13. 

2  — Dionys.,    "Antiq.    of   Rome,"    li,    7. 

3  —  Dionys..      ii.   7. 

4  —Plutarch,   "Vit.   Romulus,"  cap.   20. 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA.  TRIBE  AND  POPULUS  313 

adjustment  of  the  number  of  gentes  in  each  curia,  and 
the  number  of  curiae  in  each  tribe,  which  he  was  enabled 
to  accompHsh  through  the  accessions  gained  from  the 
surrounding  tribes.  Theoretically  each  curia  should  have 
been  composed  of  gentes  derived  by  segmentation  from 
one  or  more  gentes,  and  the  tribe  by  natural  growth 
through  the  formation  of  more  than  one  curia,  each  com- 
posed of  gentes  united  by  the  bond  of  a  common  dialect. 
The  hundred  gentes  of  the  Ramnes  were  Latin  gentes. 
In  their  organization  into  ten  curiae,  each  composed  of 
ten  gentes,  Romulus  undoubtedly  respected  the  bond  of 
kin  by  placing  related  gentes  in  the  same  curia,  as  far 
as  possible,  and  then  reached  numerical  symmetry  by 
arbitrarily  taking  the  excess  of  gentes  from  one  natural 
curia  to  supply  the  deficiency  in  another.  The  hundred 
gentes  of  the  tribe  Titles  were,  in  the  main,  Sabine  gen- 
tes. These  were  also  arranged  in  ten  curiae,  and  most 
likely  on  the  same  principle.  The  third  tribe,  the  Luceres, 
was  formed  later  from  gradual  accessions  and  conquests. 
It  was  heterogeneous  in  its  elements,  containing,  among 
others,  a  number  of  Etruscan,  gentes.  They  were  brought 
into  the  same  numerical  scale  of  ten  curiae  each  composed 
of  ten  gentes.  Under  this  re-constitution,  while  the  gens, 
the  unit  of  organization,  remained  pure  and  unchanged, 
the  curia  was  raised  above  its  logical  level,  and  made  to 
include,  in  some  cases,  a  foreign  element  which  did  not 
belong  to  a  strict  natural  phratry ;  and  the  tribe  also  was 
raised  above  its  natural  level,  and  made  to  embrace  for- 
eign elements  that  did  not  belong  to  a  tribe  as  the  tribe 
naturally  grew.  By  this  legislative  constraint  the  tribes, 
with  their  curiae  and  gentes,  were  made  severally  equal, 
w^hile  the  third  tribe  was  in  good  part  an  artificial  crea- 
tion under  the'  pressure  of  circumstances.  The  linguistic 
affiliations  of  the  Etruscans  are  still  a  matter  of  discus- 
sion. There  is  a  presumption  that  their  dialect  was  not 
wholly  unintelligible  to  the  Latin  tribes,  otherwise  they 
would  not  have  been  admitted  into  the  Roman  social  sys- 
tem, which  at  the  time  was  purely  gentile.  The  numer- 
ical proportions  thus  secured,  facilitated  the  governmental 
action  of  the  societv  as  a  whole. 


814  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

Niebuhr,  who  was  the  first  to  gain  a  true  conception 
of  the  institutions  of  the  Romans  in  this  period,  who  rec- 
ognized the  fact  that  the  people  were  sovereign,  that  the 
so-called  kings  exercised  a  delegated  power,  and  that  the 
senate  was  based  on  the  principle  of  representation,  each 
gens  having  a  senator,  became  at  variance  with  the  facts 
before  him  in  stating  in  connection  with  this  graduated 
scale,  that  "such  numerical  proportions  are  an  irrefragi- 
ble  proof  that  the  Roman  houses  [gentes]  ^  were  not 
more  ancient  than  the  constitution ;  but  corporations 
formed  by  a  legislator  in  harmony  with  the  rest  of  his 
scheme."  ^  That  a  samll  foreign  element  was  forced  into 
the  curiae  of  the  second  and  third  tribes,  and  particularly 
into  the  third,  is  undeniable ;  but  that  a  gens  was  changed 
in  its  composition  or  reconstructed  or  made,  was  simply 
impossible.  A  legislator  could  not  make  a  gens ;  neither 
could  he  make  a  curia,  except  by  combining  existing 
gentes  around  a  nucleus  of  related  gentes ;  but  he  might 
increase  or  decrease  by  constraint  the  number  of  gentes 
in  a  curia,  and  increase  or  decrease  the  number  of  curiae 
in  a  tribe.  Niebuhr  has  also  shown  that  the  gens  was 
an  ancient  and  universal  organization  among  the  Greeks 
and  Romans,  which  renders  his  preceding  declaration  the 
more  incomprehensible.  Moreover  it  appears  that  the 
phratry  was  universal,  at  least  among  the  Ionian  Greeks, 
leaving  it  probable  that  the  curia,  perhaps  under  another 
name,  was  equally  ancient  among  the  Latin  tribes.  The 
numerical  proportions  referred  to  were  no  doubt  the 
result  of  legislative  procurement  in  the  time  of  Romulus, 
and  we  have  abundant  evidence  of  the  sources  from 
which  the  new  gentes  were  obtained  with  which  these 
proportions  might  have  been  produced. 

The  members  of  the  ten  gentes  united  in  a  curia  were 
called  curiales  among  themselves.  They  elected  a  priest, 
curio,  who  was  the  chief  officer  of  the  fraternity.  Each 
curia  had  its  sacred  rites,  in  the  observance  of  which  the 

I  Whether  Niebuhr  used  the  word  "house"  In  the  place  of 
gens,  or  It  Is  a  conceit  of  the  translators,  I  am  unable  to  state. 
Thlrlwall,  one  of  the  translators,  applies  this  term  frequently 
to  the  Grecian  gens,  which  at  best  Is  objectionable. 

»   "History  of  Rome,"  1,  244. 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,  TRIBE  AND  POPULUS  816 

brotherhood  participated ;  its  sacellum  as  a  place  of  wor- 
ship, and  its  place  of  assembly  where  they  met  for  the 
transaction  of  business.  Besides  the  curio,  who  had  the 
principal  charge  of  their  religious  affairs,  the  ciiriales 
also  elected  an  assistant  priest,  flamen  curialis,  who  had 
the  immediate  charge  of  these  observances.  The  curia 
gave  its  name  to  the  assembly  of  the  gentes,  the  comitia 
curiata,  which  was  the  sovereign  power  in  Rome  to  a 
greater  degree  than  the  senate  under  the  gentile  system. 
Such,  in  general  terms,  was  the  organization  of  the  Ro- 
man curia  or  phratry.  ^ 

Next  in  the  ascending  scale  was  the  Roman  tribe,  com- 
posed of  ten  curiae  and  a  hundred  gentes.  When  a  nat- 
ural growth,  uninfluenced  externally,  a  tribe  would  be  an 
aggregation  of  such  gentes  as  were  derived  by  segmen- 
tation from  an  original  gens  or  pair  of  gentes;  all  the 
members  of  which  would  speak  the  same  dialect.  Until 
the  tribe  itself  divided,  by  processes  before  pointed  out, 
it  would  include  all  the  descendants  of  the  members  of 
these  gentes.  But  the  Roman  tribe,  with  which  alone  we 
are  now  concerned,  was  artificially  enlarged  for  special 
objects  and  by  special  means,  but  the  basis  and  body  of 
the  tribe  was  a  natural  growth. 

I  Dionysius  has  erlven  a  deflnite  and  circumstantial  analysis 
of  the  organization  ascribed  to  Romulus,  although  a  portion  of 
It  seems  to  belong  to  a  later  period.  It  is  interesting  from  tho 
parallel  he  runs  between  the  gentile  institutions  of  the  Greeks, 
with  which  he  was  equally  familiar,  and  those  of  the  Romans. 
In  the  first  place,  he  remarks,  I  will  speak  of  the  order  of  his 
polity  which  I  consider  the  most  sufficient  of  all  political  ar- 
rangements in  peace,  and  also  in  time  of  war.  It  was  as  fol- 
lows: After  dividing  the  whole  multitude  into  three  divisions, 
he  appointed  the  most  prominent  man  as  a  leader  over  each  of 
the  divisions;  in  the  next  place  dividing  each  of  the  three  again 
into  ten,  he  appointed  the  bravest  men  leaders,  having  equal 
rank;  and  he  called  the  greater  divisions  tribes,  and  the  less 
curiae,  as  they  are  also  still  called  according  to  usage.  And 
these  names  interpreted  in  the  Greek  tongue  would  be  the 
"tribus,"  a  third  part,  a  phyle;  the  "curia,"  a  phratry,  and  also 
a  band;  and  those  men  who  exercised  the  leadership  of  the 
tribes  were  both  phylarchs  and  trittyarchs,  whom  the  Romans 
call  tribunes;  and  those  who  had  the  command  of  the  curiae 
both  phratriarchs  and  lochagol,  whom  they  call  curiones.  And 
the  pnratrles  were  also  divided  into  decades,  and  a  leader  call- 
ed in  common  parlance  a  decadarch  had  command  of  each.  And 
when  all  had  been  arranged  into  tribes  and  phratrles,  he  di- 
vided the  land  into  thirty  equal  shares,  and  gave  one  full  share 
to  each  phratry,  selecting  a  sufficient  portion  for  religious  fest- 
ivals and  temples,  and  leaving  a  certain  piece  of  ground  for 
common  use.— 'Antiq.  of  Rome,"  11,  7. 


318  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

Prior  to  the  time  of  Romulus  each  tribe  elected  a  chief 
officer  whose  duties  were  magisterial,  military  and  relig- 
ious. ^  He  performed  in  the  city  magisterial  duties  for 
the  tribe,  as  well  as  administered  its  sacra,  and  he  also 
commanded  its  military  forces  in  the  field.  ^  He  was 
probably  elected  by  the  curiae  collected  in  a  general  as- 
sembly; but  here  again  our  information  is  defective. 
It  was  undoubtedly  an  ancient  office  in  each  Latin  tribe, 
peculiar  in  character  and  held  by  an  elective  tenure.  It 
was  also  the  germ  of  the  still  higher  office  of  rex,  or  gen- 
eral military  commander,  the  functions  of  the  two  offices 
being  similar.  The  tribal  chiefs  are  styled  by  Dionysius 
leaders  of  the  tribes.  ^  When  the  three  Roman  tribes 
had  coalesced  into  one  people,  under  one  senate,  one  as- 
sembly of  the  people,  and  one  militarv  commander,  the 
office  of  tribal  chief  was  overshadowed  and  became  less 
important;  but  the  continued  maintenance  of  the  office 
by  an  elective  tenure  confirms  the  inference  of  its  orig- 
inal popular  character. 

An  assembly  of  the  tribe  must  also  have  existed,  from 
a  remote  antiquity.  Before  the  founding  of  Rome  each 
Italian  tribe  was  practically  independent,  although  the 
tribes  were  more  or  less  united  in  confederate  relations. 
As  a  self-governing  body  each  of  these  ancient  tribes  had 
its  council  of  chiefs  (who  were  doubtless  the  chiefs  of 
the  gentes)  its  assembly  of  the  people,  and  its  chiefs  who 
commanded  its  military  bands.  These  three  elements  in 
the  organization  of  the  tribe ;  namely,  the  council,  the 
tribal  chief,  and  the  tribal  assembly,  were  the  types  upon 
which  were  afterwards  modeled  the  Roman  senate,  the 
Roman  rex,  and  the  cornitia  curiata.  The  tribal  chief 
was  in  all  probability  called  by  the  name  of  rex  before 
the  founding  of  Rome ;  and  the  same  remark  is  applica- 
ble to  the  name  of  senators  (senex),  and  the  comitia 
(con-ire).  The  inference  arises,  from  what  is  known  of 
the  condition  and  organization  of  these  tribes,  that  their 
institutions    were    essentially    democratical.      After    the 

I  Dionysius,     11,  7. 

a  Smith's     Die,  1.  c.  Art.  Trlbun*.- 

3  Dionysius.    11,  7. 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,  TRIBE  AND  POPUL.US  317 

coalescence  of  the  three  Roman  tribes,  the  national  char- 
acter of  the  tribe  was  lost  in  the  higher  organization ; 
but  it  still  remained  as  a  necessary  integer  in  the  organic 
series. 

The  fourth  and  last  stage  of  organization  was  the  Ro- 
man nation  or  people,  formed,  as  stated,  by  the  coales- 
cence of  three  tribes.  Externally  the  ultimate  organiza- 
tion was  manifested  by  a  senate  (scnatus),  a  poi)ular  as- 
sembly (comitia  cnriata),  and  a  general  military  com- 
mander (rex).  It  was  further  manifested  by  a  city  mag- 
istracy, by  an  army  organization,  and  by  a  common  na- 
tional priesthood  of  different  orders.  ^ 

A  powerful  city  organization  was  from  the  first  the 
central  idea  of  their  governmental  and  military  systems, 
to  which  all  areas  beyond  Rome  remained  provincial. 
Under  the  military  democracy  of  Romulus,  under  the 
mixed  democratical  and  aristocratical  organization  of  the 
republic,  and  under  the  later  imperialism  it  was  a  govern- 
ment with  a  great  city  in  its  centre,  a  perpetual  nucleus, 
to  which  all  additions  by  conquest  were  added  as  incre- 
ments, instead  of  being  made,  with  the  city,  common 
constituents  of  the  government.  Xothing  precisely  like 
this  Roman  organization,  this  Roman  power,  and  the 
career  of  the  Roman  race,  has  appeared  in  the  experience 
c£  mankind.     It  will  ever  remain  the  marvel  of  the  ages. 

As  organized  by  Romulus  they  styled  themselves  the 
Roman  People  (Populus  Ronianiis) ,  which  was  perfectly 
exact.  They  had  formed  a  gentile  society  and  nothing 
more.  But  the  rapid  increase  of  numbers  in  the  time 
of  Romulus,  and  the  still  greater  increase  between  this 
period  and  that  of  Servius  Tullius.  demonstrated  the  ne- 
cessity for  a  fundamental  change  in  the  plan  of  govern- 
ment. Romulus  and  the  wise  men  of  his  time  had  made 
the  most  of  gentile  institutions.     We  are  indebted  to  his 

I  The  thirty  curiones,  as  a  body,  wero  organized  Into  a  col- 
lege of  priests,  one  of  their  number  holding  the  office  of  "curio 
maximus."  He  was  elected  by  the  assembly  of  the  gentes. 
Besides  tliis  was  the  college  of  augurs,  consisting  under  the 
Ogulnlan  law  (300  B.  C.)  of  nine  members,  including  their  chief 
officer  ("magister  collegli");  and  the  college  of  pontiffs,  com- 
posed under  the  same  law  of  nine  members,  including  the 
•'pontlfex  maximus." 


818  ANCIENT  SOCIETY  "'^       . 

legislation  for  a  grand  attempt  to  establish  upon  the  gen- 
tes  a  great  national  and  military  power;  and  thus  for 
some  knowledge  of  the  character  and  structure  of  insti- 
tutions which  might  otherwise  have  faded  into  obscurity, 
if  they  had  not  perished  from  remembrance.  The  rise 
of  the  Roman  power  upon  gentile  institutions  was  a  re- 
markable event  in  human  experience.  It  is  not  singular 
that  the  incidents  that  accompanied  the  movement  should 
have  come  to  us  tinctured  with  romance,  not  to  say  en- 
shrouded in  fable.  Rome  came  into  existence  through 
a  happy  conception,  ascribed  to  Romulus,  and  adopted 
by  his  successors,  of  concentrating  the  largest  possible 
number  of  gentes  in  a  new  city,  under  one  government, 
and  with  their  united  military  forces  under  one  com- 
mander. Its  objects  were  essentially  military,  to  gain  a 
supremacy  in  Italy,  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  or- 
ganization took  the  form  of  a  military  democracy. 

Selecting  a  magnificent  situation  upon  the  Tiber,  where 
after  leaving  the  mountain  range  it  had  entered  the  cam- 
pagna,  Romulus  occupied  the  Palatine  Hill,  the  site  of 
an  ancient  fortress,  with  a  tribe  of  the  Latins  of  which 
he  was  the  chief.  Tradition  derived  his  descent  from  the 
chiefs  of  Alba,  which  is  a  matter  of  secondary  import- 
ance. The  new  settlement  grew  with  marvelous  rapidity, 
if  the  statement  is  reliable  that  at  the  close  of  his  life  the 
military  forces  numbered  46,000  foot  and  1,000  horse, 
which  would  indicate  some  200,000  people  in  the  city  and 
in  the  surrounding  region  under  its  protection.  Livy  re- 
marks that  it  was  an  ancient  device  {veins  consilium)  of 
the  founders  of  cities  to  draw  to  themselves  an  obscure 
and,  humble  multitude,  and  then  set  up  for  their  progeny 
the  autocthonic  claim.'  Romulus  pursuing  this  ancient 
policy  is  said  to  have  opened  an  asylum  near  the  Pala- 
tine, and  to  have  invited  all  persons  in  the  surrounding 
tribes,  without  regard  to  character  or  condition,  to  share 
with  his  tribe  the  advantages  and  the  destiny  of  the  new 
city.  A  great  crowd  of  people,  Livy  further  remarks, 
fled  to  this  place  from  the  surrounding  territories,  slave 

I     Livy,    I,  S, 


THE  ROMAIC  CURIA,  TRIBE  AND  POPULUS  319 

as  well  as  free,  which  was  the  first  accession  of  foreign 
strength  to  the  new  undertaking.  *  Plutarch,  ^  and  Dio- 
nysius  ^  both  refer  to  the  asylum  or  grove,  the  opening 
of  which,  for  the  object  and  with  the  success  named,  was 
an  event  of  probable  occurrence.  It  tends  to  show  that 
the  people  of  Italy  had  then  become  numerous  for  bar- 
barians, and  that  discontent  prevailed  among  them  in 
consequence,  doubtless,  of  the  imperfect  protection  of 
personal  rights,  the  existence  of  domestic  slavery,  and 
the  apprehension  of  violence.  Of  such  a  state  of  things 
a  W'ise  man  would  naturally  avail  himself  if  he  possessed 
sufficient  military  genius  to  handle  the  class  of  men  thus 
brought  together.  The  next  important  event  in  this 
romantic  narrative,  of  which  the  reader  should  be  re- 
minded, was  the  assault  of  the  Sabines  to  avenge  the 
entrapment  of  the  Sabine  virgins,  now  the  honored  wives 
of  their  captors.  It  resulted  in  a  wise  accommodation 
under  which  the  Latins  and  Sabines  coalesced  into  one 
society,  but  each  division  retaining  its  own  military 
leader.  The  Sabines  occupied  the  Quirinal  and  Capitol- 
ine  Hills.  Thus  was  added  the  principal  part  of  the  sec- 
ond tribe,  the  Tities,  under  Titius  Tatius  their  military 
chief.  After  the  death  of  the  latter  they  all  fell  under 
the  military  command  of  Romulus. 

Passing  over  Numa  Pompilius,  the  successor  of  Rom- 
ulus, who  established  upon  a  broader  scale  the  religious 
institutions  of  the  Romans,  his  successor,  Tullus  Hostil- 
ius,  captured  the  Latin  city  of  Alba  and  removed  its 
entire  population  to  Rome.  They  occupied  the  Coelian 
Hill,  with  all  the  privileges  of  Roman  citizens.  The 
number  of  citizens  was  now  doubled,  Livy  remarks ;  * 
but  not  likely  from  this  source  exclusively.  Ancus  Mar- 
tins, the  successor  of  Tullus,  captured  the  Latin  city  of 
Politorium,  and  following  the  established  policy,  trans- 
ferred the  people  bodily  to  Rome.  *     To  them  was    as- 

1  Eo  ex  finitlmis  popuHs  turba  omnls  sine  dlscrlmlne,  liber  an 
Bervus  esset.  avida  novarum  rerum  perfuglt;  Idque  prlmum  ad 
coeptam   magnitudinem   roborls  fult.—   Llvy,     1,  8. 

2  "Vlt.  Romulus,"  cap.  20. 

3  "Antlq,   of  Rome,"   11,  15. 

4  Llvy.     i,  30. 

5  lb.,  1,  33. 


320  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

signed  the  Aventine  Hill,  with  similar  privileges.  Not 
long  afterwards  the  inhabitants  of  Tellini  and  Ficana 
were  subdued  and  removed  to  Rome,  where  they  also 
occupied  the  Aventine.  *  It  will  be  noticed  that  in  each 
case  the  gentes  brought  to  Rome,  as  well  as  the  original 
Latin  and  Sabine  gentes,  remained  locally  distinct.  It 
was  the  universal  usage  in  gentile  society,  both  in  the 
Middle  and  in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  when  the 
tribes  began  to  gather  in  fortresses  and  in  walled  cities, 
for  the  gentes  to  settle  locally  together  by  gentes  and  by 
phratries,  ^  Such  was  the  manner  the  gentes  settled  at 
Rome.  The  greater  portion  of  these  accessions  were 
united  in  the  third  tribe,  the  Luceres,  which  gave  it  a 
broad  basis  of  Latin  gentes..  It  was  not  entirely  filled  until 
the  time  of  Tarquinius  Priscus,  the  fourth  military  leader 
from  Romulus,  some  of  the  new  gentes  being  Etruscan. 
By  these  and  other  means  three  hundred  gentes  were 
gathered  at  Rome  and  there  organized  in  curiae  and 
tribes,  differing  somewhat  in  tribal  lineage ;  for  the  Ram- 
nes,  as  before  remarked,  were  Latins,  the  Tities  were  in 
the  main  Sabines  and  the  Luceres  were  probably  in  the 
main  Latins  with  large  accessions  from  other  sources. 
The  Roman  people  and  organization  thus  grew  into  being 
by  a  more  or  less  constrained  aggregation  of  gentes  into 
curiae,  of  curiae  into  tribes,  and  of  tribes  into  one  gentile 
society.  But  a  model  for  each  integral  organization,  ex- 
cepting the  last,  had  existed  among  them  and  their  an- 
cestors from  time  immemorial ;  with  a  natural  basis  for 
each  curia  in  the  kindred  gentes  actually  united  in  each, 
and  a  similar  basis  for  each  tribe  in  the  common  lineage 
of  a  greater  part  of  the  gentes  united  in  each.  All  that 
was  new  in  organization  was  the  numerical  proportions 
of  gentes  to  a  curia,  of  curiae  to  a  tribe,  and  the  coales- 
cence of  the  latter  into  one  people.     It  may  be  called  a 

1  Livy,     1,  38. 

2  In  the  pueblo  houses  In  New  Mexic)  all  the  occupants  of 
each  house  belonged  to  the  same  trilic,  and  In  some  cases  a 
Elnele  joint-tenement  house  contained  a  tribe.  In  the  pueblo 
of  Mexico  there  were  four  principal  quaitfr.s,  as  lias  been 
shown,  each  occupied  by  a  linoaj^e.  prol)ably  a  phratry;  while 
the  Tlatelulcos  occupied  a  fifth  district.  At  Tlascala  then, 
were  also  four  quarters  occupied  by  four  lineages,  probabl/ 
phratries. 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,  TRIBE  AND  POPULUS  321 

growth  under  legislative  constraint,  because  the  tribes 
thus  formed  were  not  entirely  free  from  the  admixture 
of  foreign  elements ;  whence  arose  the  new  name  tribus^= 
a  third  part  of  the  people,  which  now  came  in  to  dis- 
tinguish this  organism.  The  Latin  language  must  have 
had  a  term  equivalent  to  the  Greek  phylon=:tribe,  be- 
cause they  had  the  same  organization;  but  if  so  it  has 
disappeared.  The  invention  of  this  new  term  is  some 
evidence  that  the  Roman  tribes  contained  heterogeneous 
elements,  while  the  Grecian  were  pure,  and  kindred  in 
the  lineage  of  the  gentes  they  contained. 

Our  knowledge  of  the  previous  constitution  of  Latin 
society  is  mainly  derived  from  the  legislation  ascribed 
to  Romulus,  since  it  brings  into  view  the  anterior  or- 
ganization of  the  Latin  tribes,  with  such  improvements 
and  modifications  as  the  wisdom  of  the  age  was  able  to 
suggest.  It  is  seen  in  the  senate  as  a  council  of  chiefs, 
in  the  comitia  curiata  as  an  assembly  of  the  people  by 
curiae,  in  the  office  of  a  general  military  commander,  and 
in  the  ascending  series  of  organizations.  It  is  seen  more 
especially  in  the  presence  of  the  gentes,  with  their  rec- 
ognized rights,  privileges  and  obligations.  Moreover, 
the  government  instituted  by  Romulus  and  perfected  by 
his  immediate  successors  presents  gentile  society  in  the 
highest  structural  form  it  ever  attained  in  any  portion 
of  the  human  family.  The  time  referred  to  was  immedi- 
ately before  the  institution  of  political  society  by  Servius 
Tuliius. 

The  first  momentous  act  of  Romulus,  as  a  legislator, 
was  the  institution  of  the  Roman  senate.  It  was  com- 
posed of  a  hundred  members,  one  from  each  gens,  or  ten 
from  each  curia.  A  council  of  chiefs  as  the  primary  in- 
strument of  government  was  not  a  new  thing  among  the 
Latin  tribes.  From  time  immemorial  they  had  been  ac- 
customed to  its  existence  and  to  its  authority.  But  it  is 
probable  that  prior  to  the  time  of  Romulus  it  had  be- 
come changed,  like  the  Grecian  councils,  into  a  pre-con- 
sidering  body,  obligated  to  prepare  and  submit  to  an  as- 
sembly of  the  people  the  most  important  public  measures 
for  adoption  or  rejection.    This  was  in  effect  a  resump- 


328  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

tion  by  the  people  of  powers  before  vested  in  the  council 
of  chiefs.  Since  no  public  measure  of  essential  import- 
ance could  become  operative  until  it  received  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  popular  assembly,  this  fact  alone  shows  that 
the  people  were  sovereign,  and  not  the  council,  nor  the 
military  commander.  It  reveals  also  the  extent  to  which 
democratic  principles  had  penetrated  their  social  system. 
The  senate  instituted  by  Romulus,  although  its  functions 
were  doubtless  substantially  similar  to  those  of  the  prev- 
ious council  of  chiefs,  was  an  advance  upon  it  in  several 
respects.  It  was  made  up  either  of  the  chiefs  or  of  the 
wise  men  of  the  gentes.  Each  gens,  as  Niebuhr  remarks, 
"sending  its  decurion  who  was  its  alderman,"*  to  repre- 
sent it  in  the  senate.  It  was  thus  a  representative  and  an 
elective  body  in  its  inception,  and  it  remained  elective, 
or  selective,  down  to  the  empire.  The  senators  held  their 
office  for  life,  which  was  the  only  term  of  office  then 
known  among  them,  and  therefore  not  singular.  Livy 
ascribes  the  selection  of  the  first  senators  to  Romulus, 
which  is  probably  an  erroneous  statement,  for  the  reason 
that  it  would  not  have  been  in  accordance  with  the  theory 
of  their  institutions.  Romulus  chose  a  hundred  senators, 
he  remarks,  either  because  that  number  was  sufficient,  or 
because  there  were  but  a  hundred  who  could  be  created 
Fathers,  Fathers  certainly  they  were  called  on  account 
of  their  official  dignity,  and  their  descendants  were  called 
patricians.  '  The  character  of  the  senate  as  a  represent- 
ative body,  the  title  of  Fathers  of  the  People  bestowed 
upon  its  members,  the  life  tenure  of  the  office,  but,  more 
than  all  these  considerations,  the  distinction  of  patricians 
conferred  upon  their  children  and  lineal  descendants  in 
perpetuity,  established  at  a  stroke  an  aristocracy  of  rank 
in  the  centre  of  their  social  system  where  it  became  firmly 
intrenched.  The  Roman  senate,  from  its  high  vocation, 
from  its  composition,  and  from  the  patrician  rark    re- 


I   "History  of  Rome,"  1,  258. 

a  Centum  creat  Benatores:  slve  quia  Is  nume^ru?  satis  erat; 
slve  quia  soil  centum  erant,  qui  crearl  Patres  possent,  Patres 
•c«rte  ab  honore,  patrlcllque  profirenies  eorum  pppellatL—Llvy, 
1,  8.  And  Cicero:  Prlnclpes,  qui  appellatl  sunt  propter  oarlta- 
t»in,  patres.— "De  Rep.,"  11,  8, 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,  TRIBE  AND  POPULUS  333 

ccived  by  its  members  and  transmitted  to  their  descend- 
ants, held  a  powerful  position  in  the  subsequent  state. 
It  was  this  aristocratic  element,  now  for  the  first  time 
planted  in  gentilism,  which  gave  to  the  republic  its  mon- 
grel character,  and  which,  as  might  have  been  predicted, 
culminated  in  imperialism,  and  with  it  in  the  final  dis- 
solution of  the  race.  It  may  perhaps  have  increased  the 
military  glory  and  extended  the  conquests  of  Rome,  whose 
institutions,  from  the  first,  aimed  at  a  military  destiny; 
but  it  shortened  the  career  of  this  great  and  extraordinary 
people,  and  demonstrated  the  proposition  that  imperial- 
ism of  necessity  will  destroy  any  civilized  race.  Under 
the  republic,  half  aristocratic,  half  democratic,  the  Ro- 
mans achieved  their  fame,  which  one  can  but  think  would 
have  been  higher  in  degree,  and  more  lasting  in  its  fruits, 
had  liberty  and  equality  been  nationalized,  instead  of  un- 
equal privileges  and  an  atrocious  slavery.  The  long  pro- 
tracted struggle  of  the  plebeians  to  eradicate  the  aristo- 
cratic element  represented  by  the  senate,  and  to  recover 
the  ancient  principles  of  democracy,  must  be  classed 
among  the  heroic  labors  of  mankind. 

After  the  union  of  the  Sabines  the  senate  was  increased 
to  two  hundred  by  the  addition  of  a  hundred  senators  * 
from  the  gentes  of  the  tribe  Titles ;  and  when  the  Lu- 
ceres  had  increased  to  a  hundred  gentes  in  the  time  of 
Tarquinius  Priscus,  a  third  hundred  senators  were  added 
from  the  gentes  of  this  tribe.  *  Cicero  has  left  some 
doubt  upon  this  statement  of  Livy,  by  saying  that  Tar- 
quinius Priscus  doubled  the  original  number  of  the  sena- 
tors. ^  But  Schmitz  w-ell  suggests,  as  an  explanation  of 
the  discrepancy,  that  at  the  time  of  the  final  increase  the 
senate  may  have  become  reduced  to  a  hundred  and  fifty 
members,  and  been  filled  up  to  two  hundred  from  the 
gentes  of  the  first  two  tribes,  when  the  hundred  were 
added  from  the  third.  The  senators  taken  from  the  tribes 
Ramnes  and  Titles  were  thenceforth  called  Fathers  of 
the  Greater  Gentes  (patres  vtatoruw.  gentium'),  and 
those  of  the  Luceres  Fathers  of  the  Lesser  Gentes  {patres 

I  Dlonyslus,  11,  47. 

a  —Livy,   1,   35. 

3  —Cicero,  "De  R«p.,"  11,  30. 


824  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

minorum  gentium).  ^  From  the  form  of  the  statement 
the  inference  arises  that  the  three  hundred  senators  rep- 
resented the  three  hundred  gentes,  each,  senator  repre- 
senting a  gens.  Moreover,  as  each  gens  doubtless  had 
its  principal  chief  {princcps),  it  becomes  extremely  prob- 
able that  this  person  was  chosen  for  the  position  either 
by  his  gens,  or  the  ten  were  chosen  together  by  the  curia, 
from  the  ten  gentes  of  which  it  was  composed.  Such  a 
method  of  representation  and  of  choice  is  most  in  accord- 
ance with  what  is  known  of  Roman  and  gentile  institu- 
tions. ^  After  the  establishment  of  the  republic,  the  cen- 
sors filled  the  vacancies  in  the  senate  by  their  own  choice, 
until  it  was  devolved  upon  the  consuls.  They  were  gen- 
erally selected  from  the  ex-magistrates  of  the  higher 
grades. 

The  powers  of  the  senate  were  real  and  substantial. 
All  public  measures  originated  in  this  body — those  upon 
which  they  could  act  independently,  as  well  as  those 
which  must  be  submitted  to  the  popular  assembly  and 
,  be  adopted  before  they  could  become  operative.  It  had 
the  general  guardianship  of  the  public  welfare,  the  man- 
agement of  their  foreign  relations,  the  levying  of  taxes 
and  of  military  forces,  and  the  general  control  of  rev- 
enues and  expenditures.  Although  the  administration  of 
religious  affairs  belonged  to  the  several  colleges  of  priests, 
the  senate  had  the  ultimate  power  over  religion  as  well. 

1  Cicero,  "De  Rep.,"  il,  20. 

2  This  was  .substantially  the  opinion  of  Niebuhr.  "We  may 
go  further"  and  affirm  without  hesitation,  that  originally,  when 
the  number  of  houses  (gentes)  was  complete,  they  were  rep- 
resented immediately  by  the  senate,  the  number  of  which  was 
proportionate  to  theirs.  The  three  hundred  senators  answered 
to  the  three  hundred  houses,  whicli  was  assumed  above  on 
good  grounds  to  be  the  number  of  them;  each  gens  sent  Its 
decurlon,  wlio  was  its  alderman  and  the  president  of  its  meet- 
ings to   represent   it    in    the   senate That   the   senate    should 

be  appointed  by  the  kings  at  their  discretion,  can  never  have 
been  the  original  institution.  Even  Dionyslus  supposes  that 
there  was  an  election:  his  notion  of  it,  however,  is  quite  unten- 
able, and  the  deputies  must  have  been  chosen,  at  least  original- 
ly, by  the  houses  and  n-/t  by  the  curia?."— "Hist,  of  Ronr^."  I. 
2.'i8.  An  election  by  the  curite  Is,  In  principle,  most  probable.  If 
the  office  did  n^t  fall  lo  t!ie  chief  "ex  officio."  because  the  gen- 
tes In  a  curia  had  a  direct  Intere.ct  in  the  representation  of 
each  gens.  It  was  for  the  same  reason  that  a  sachem  elected 
by  the  members  of  an  Iroquois  gens  must  be  accepted  bv  the 
other  gentes  of  the  same  tribe  before  his  nomination  waa 
complete. 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,  TRIBE  AND  POPULUS  ft*6 

From  its  functions  and  vocation  it  was  the  most  influen- 
tial body  which  ever  existed  under    gentile    institutions. 

The  assembly  of  the  people,  with  the  recognized  right 
of  acting  upon  important  public  measures  to  be  discussed 
by  them  and  adopted  or  rejected,  w^as  unknown  in  the 
Lower,  and  probably  in  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism; 
but  it  existed  in  the  Upper  Status,  in  the  agora  of  the 
Grecian  tribes,  and  attained  its  highest  form  in  the  eccle- 
sia  of  the  Athenians ;  and  it  also  existed  in  the  assembly 
of  the  warriors  among  the  Latin  tribes,  attaining  its 
highest  form  in  the  coiiiifia  curiata  of  the  Romans,  The 
growth  of  property  tended  to  the  establishment  of  the 
popular  assembly,  as  a  third  power  in  gentile  society,  ior 
the  protection  of  personal  rights  and  as  a  shield  against 
the  encroachments  of  the  council  of  chiefs,  and  of  the 
military  commander.  From  the  period  of  savagery,  after 
the  institution  of  the  gentes,  down  to  the  times  of  Solon 
and  Romulus,  the  popular  element  had  always  been  active 
in  ancient  gentile  society.  The  council  of  chiefs  was 
usually  open  in  the  early  conditions  to  the  orators  of 
the  people,  and  public  sentiment  influenced  the  course  of 
events.  But  when  the  Grecian  and  Latin  tribes  first  came 
under  historical  notice  the  assembly  of  the  people  to 
discuss  and  adopt  or  reject  public  measures  was  a  phe- 
nomenon quite  as  constant  as  that  of  a  council  of  chiefs. 
It  was  more  perfectly  systematized  among  the  Romans 
under  the  constitution  of  Romulus  than  among  the 
Athenians  in  the  time  of  Solon.  In  the  rise  and  progress 
of  this  institution  may  be  traced  the  growth  and  devel- 
opment of  the  democratic  principle. 

This  assembly  among  the  Romans  was  called  the 
comitia  curiata,  because  the  members  of  the  gentes  of 
adult  age  met  in  one  assembly  by  curia?,  and  voted  in  the 
same  manner.  Each  curia  had  one  collective  vote,  the 
majority  in  each  was  ascertained  separately,  and  deter- 
mined what  that  vote  should  be,  ^  It  was  the  assembly  of 
the  gentes,  who  alone  were  members  of  the  government. 
Plebeians  and  clients,  who  already  formed  a  numerous 


I     Llvy,     1,  43.      Dlonys.,     11,  14;  Iv,  20,  84, 


^  AMCIENt  SOCiETY 

class,  were  excluded,  because  there  could  be  no  connec- 
tion with  the  Populus  Romanus,  except  through  a  gens 
and  tribe.  This  assembly,  as  before  stated,  could  neither 
originate  public  measures,  nor  amend  such  as  were  sub- 
mitted to  them ;  but  none  of  a  certain  erade  could  become 
operative  until  adopted  by  the  comitia.  All  laws  were 
passed  or  repealed  by  this  assembly ;  all  magistrates  and 
high  public  functionaries,  including  the  rex,  were  elected 
by  it  on  the  nomination  of  the  senate.^  The  imperhim 
was  conferred  upon  these  persons  by  a  law  of  the  as- 
sembly {lex  curiata  de  imperio),  which  was  the  Roman 
method  of  investing  with  office.  Until  the  {mperiiint 
was  thus  conferred,  the  person,  although  the  election 
was  complete,  could  not  enter  upon  his  office.  The  com- 
itia curiata,  by  appeal,  had  the  ultimate  decision  in 
criminal  cases  involving  the  life  of  a  Roman  citizen.  It 
was  by  a  popular  movement  that  the  office  of  rex  was 
abolished.  Although  the  assembly  of  the  people  never 
acquired  the  power  of  originating  measures,  its  powers 
were  real  and  influential.  At  this  time  the  people  were 
sovereign. 

The  assembly  had  no  power  to  convene  itself;  but  it  is 
said  to  have  met  on  the  summons  of  the  rex,  or,  in  his 
absence,  on  that  of  the  praefect  (praefectus  urbi).  In  the 
time  of  the  republic  it  was  convened  by  the  consuls,  or  in 
their  absence,  by  the  praetor;  and  in  all  cases  the  person 
who  convened  the  assembly  presided  over  its  delibera- 
tions. 

In  another  connection  the  office  of  rex  has  been  con- 
sidered. The  rex  was  a  general  and  also  a  priest,  but 
without  civil  functions,  as  some  writers  have  endeav- 
ored to  imply.  '     His  powers  as  a  general,    though    not 

I  Numa  PompUlus  (Clcpro.  "De  Rpp.,"  \\,  11;  Llv.,  1.  17), 
TuUua  HostiUus  (Cicero,  "De  Rep.,"  li.  17),  and  Ancus  Martlus 
(Clc,  "De  Rep.,"  il,  18;  Livy,  i,  32),  were  elected  by  the 
"comitia  curiata."  In  tlie  case  of  Tarquinlus  Priscus,  Llvy 
observes  that  the  people  by  a  great  majority  elected  him  "rex" 
(1,  35).  It  wa.s  necessarily  by  the  "comitia  curiata."  Servlus 
Tulllus  a.ssumed  the  office  which  was  afterwards  confirmed  by 
the  "comitia"  (Cicero,  "De  Rep.,"  11,  21).  The  right  of  elec- 
tion thus  reserved  to  the  people,  shows  that  the  office  of  "rex" 
was  a  popular  one,  and  that   his  powers   were  delegated. 

»  Mr.  Leonhard  Schmltz,  one  of  the  ablest  defenders  of  the 
thtory  of  kingly  government  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans, 


ttlti  ROMAN  CURIA,  fRIBE  AND  POf»tJLtJS  $^7 

defined,  were  necessarily  absolute  over  the  military 
forces  in  the  field  and  in  the  city.  If  he  exercised  any 
civil  powers  in  particular  cases,  it  must  be  supposed  that 
they  were  delegated  for  the  occasion.  To  pronounce  him 
a  king,  as  that  term  is  necessarily  understood,  is  to  vitiate 
and  mis-describe  the  popular  government  to  which  he 
belonged,  and  the  institutions  upon  which  it  rested.  The 
form  of  government  under  which  the  rex  and  basileus 
appeared  is  identified  with  gentile  institutions  and  disap- 
peared after  gentile  society  was  overthrown.  It  was  a 
peculiar  organization  having  no  parallel  in  modern 
society,  and  is  unexplainable  in  terms  adapted  to  mo- 
narchical institutions.  A  military  democracy  under  a 
senate,  an  assembly  of  the  people,  and  a  general  of  their 
nomination  and  election,  is  a  near,  though  it  may  not  be 
a  perfect,  characterization  of  a  government  so  peculiar, 
which  belongs  exclusively  to  ancient  society,  and  rested 
on  institutions  essentially  democratical.  Romulus,  in  all 
probability,  emboldened  by  his  great  successes,  assumed 
powers  which  were  regarded  as  dangerous  to  the  senate 
and  to  the  people,  and  his  assassination  by  the  Roman 
chiefs  is  a  fair  inference  from  the  statements  concerning 
his  mysterious  disappearance  which  have  come  down  to 
us.  This  act,  atrocious  as  it  must  be  pronounced,  evinces 
that  spirit  of  independence,  inherited  from  the  gentes, 
which  would  not  submit  to  arbitrary  individual  power. 
When  the  office  was  abolished,  and  the  consulate  was 
established  in  its  place,  it  is  not  surprising  that  two 
consuls  were  created  instead  of  one.  While  the  powers 
of  the  office  might  raise  one  man  to  a  dangerous  height, 
it  could  not  be  the  case  with  two.  The  same  subtlety  of 
reasoning  led  the  Iroquois,  without  original  experience, 
to  create  two  war-chiefs  of  the  confederacy  instead  of 
one,    lest    the    office    of    commander-in-chief,    bestowed 


with  great  candor  remarks:  "It  Is  very  difficult  to  deterrain* 
the  extent  of  the  kind's  powers,  as  the  ancient  writers  natur- 
ally judged  of  the  kingly  period  by  their  own  republican  con- 
stitution, and  frequently  assigned  to  the  king,  the  senate,  and 
the  "comitla"  of  the  "curiae"  the  respective  powers  and  func- 
tions which  were  only  true  In  reference  to  the  coniula,  th« 
senate  and  the  "comitla"  of  their  own  time."— Smith's  "Die.  Qk. 
Sc   Rom.  Antiq.,  Art.   Rex." 


328  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

upon    a    single    man,    should  raise  him  to  a  position  too 
influential. 

In  his  capacity  of  chief  priest  the  rex  took  the  auspices 
on  important  occasions,  which  was  one  of  the  highest 
acts  of  the  Roman  religious  system,  and  in  their  estima- 
tion quite  as  necessary  in  the  field  on  the  eve  of  a  battle 
as  in  the  city.  He  performed  other  religious  rites  as  well. 
It  is  not  surprising  that  in  those  times  priestly  functions 
are  found  among  the  Romans,  as  among  the  Greeks, 
attached  to  or  inherent  in  the  highest  military  office. 
When  the  abolition  of  this  office  occurred,  it  was  found 
necessary  to  vest  in  some  one  the  religious  functions 
appertaining  to  it,  which  were  evidently  special ;  whence 
the  creation  of  the  new  office  of  rex  sacrificulus,  or  rex 
sacrorum,  the  incumbent  of  which  performed  the  relig- 
ious duties  in  question.  Among  the  Athenians  the  same 
idea  reappears  in  the  second  of  the  nine  archons,  who 
was  called  archon  basileus,  and  had  a  general  supervi- 
sion of  religious  afifairs.  Why  religious  functions  were 
attached  to  the  office  of  rex  and  basileus,  among  the 
Romans  and  Greeks,  and  to  the  office  of  Tenctli  among 
the  Aztecs ;  and  why,  after  the  abolition  of  the  office  in 
the  two  former  cases,  the  ordinary  priesthoods  could  not 
perform  them,  has  not  been  explained. 

Thus  stood  Roman  gentile  society  from  the  time  of 
Romulus  to  the  time  of  Servius  Tullius,  through  a  period 
of  more  than  two  hundred  years,  during  which  the  foun- 
dations of  Roman  power  were  laid.  The  government,  as 
before  remarked,  consisted  of  three  powers,  a  senate,  an 
assembly  of  the  people,  and  a  military  commander.  They 
had  experienced  the  necessity  for  definite  written  laws  to 
be  enacted  by  themselves,  as  a  substitute  for  usages  and 
customs.  In  the  rex  they  had  the  germinal  idea  of  a  chief 
executive  magistrate,  which  necessity  pressed  upon  them, 
and  which  was  to  advance  into  a  more  complete  form 
after  the  institution  of  political  society.  But  they  found 
it  a  dangerous  office  in  those  times  of  limited  experience 
in  the  higher  conceptions  of  government,  because  the 
powers  of  the  rex  were,  in  the  main,  undefined,  as  well 
as  difficult  of  definition.     It  is  not  surprising  that  when 


THE  ROMAN  CURIA,  TRIBE  AND  POPULUS  828 

a  serious  controversy  arose  beUveen  the  people  and 
Tarquinius  Snperbiis,  they  deposed  the  man  and  abol- 
ished the  office.  As  soon'  as  something  like  the  irrespon- 
sible power  of  a  king  met  them  face  to  face  it  was  found 
incompatible  with  liberty  and  the  latter  gained  the 
victory.  They  were  willing,  however,  to  admit  into  the 
system  of  government  a  limited  executive,  and  they 
created  the  ofifice  in  a  dual  form  in  the  two  consuls.  This 
occurred  after  the  institution  of  political  society. 

No  direct  steps  were  taken,  prior  to  the  time  of  Servius 
Tullius,  to  establish  a  state  founded  upon  territory  and 
upon  property ;  but  the  previous  measures  were  a  prepara- 
tion for  that  event.  In  addition  to  the  institutions  named, 
they  had  created  a  city  magistracy,  and  a  complete  mili- 
tary system,  including  the  institution  of  the  equestrian 
order.  Under  institutions  purely  gentile  Rome  had 
become,  in  the  time  of  Servius  Tullius,  the  strongest 
military  power  in  Italy. 

Among  the  new  magistrates  created,  that  of  warden  of 
the  city  (custos  urbis)  was  the  most  important.  This 
officer,  who  was  chief  of  the  senate  (princeps  senafus), 
was,  in  the  first  instance,  according  to  Dionysius, 
appointed  by  Romulus.  ^  The  senate,  which  had  no 
power  to  convene  itself,  was  convened  by  him.  It  is  also 
claimed  that  the  rex  had  power  to  summon  the  senate. 
That  it  would  be  apt  to  convene  upon  his  request,  through 
the  call  of  its  own  officer,  is  probable ;  but  that  he  could 
command  its  convocation  is  improbable,  from  its  inde- 
pendence in  functions,  from  its  dignity,  and  from  its 
representative  character.  After  the  time  of  the  Decem- 
virs the  name  of  the  office  was  changed  to  praefect  of  the 
city  {praefcctus  urbi),  its  powers  were  enlarged,  and  it 
v.-as  made  elective  by  the  new  comitia  ceiifuriafa.  Under 
the  republic,  the  consuls,  and  in  their  absence,  the  praetor, 
had  power  to  convene  the  senate,  and  also  to  hold  the 
comitia.  At  a  later  day,  the  office  of  praetor  (praetor 
urbanus)  absorbed  the  functions  of  this  ancient  office  and 
became  its  successor.    A  judicial  magistrate,  the  Roman 


I     Dlonys.,     11,  12. 


8d6  ANCIENT  SOCiE'i'¥ 

praetor  was  the  prototype  of  the  modern  judge.  Thus, 
every  essential  institution  in  the  government  or  admin- 
istration of  the  affairs  of  society  may  generally  be  traced 
to  a  simple  germ,  which  springs  up  in  a  rude,  form  from 
human  wants,  and,  when  able  to  endure  the  test  of  time 
and  experience,  is  developed  into  a  permanent  institution. 
A  knowledge  of  the  tenure  of  the  office  of  chief,  and 
of  the  functions  of  the  council  of  chiefs,  before  the  time 
of  Romulus,  could  they  be  ascertained,  would  reflect 
much  light  upon  the  condition  of  Roman  gentile  society 
in  the  time  of  Ronuilus.  Moreover,  the  several  periods 
should  be  studied  separately,  because  the  facts  of  their 
social  condition  were  changing  with  their  advancement 
in  intelligence.  The  Italian  period  prior  to  Romulus,  the 
period  of  the  seven  reges,  and  the  subsequent  periods  of 
the  republic  and  of  the  empire  are  marked  by  great  differ- 
ences in  the  spirit  and  character  of  the  government.  But 
the  institutions  of  the  first  period  entered  into  the  second, 
and  these  again  were  transmitted  into  the  third,  and 
remained  with  modifications  in  the  fourth.  The  growth, 
development  and  fall  of  these  institutions  embody  the 
vital  history  of  the  Roman  people.  It  is  by  tracing  these 
institutions  from  the  germ  through  their  successive  stages 
of  growth,  on  the  wide  scale  of  the  tribes  and  nations  of 
mankind,  that  we  can  follow  the  great  movements  of 
the  human  mind  in  its  evolution  from  its  infancy  in 
savagery  to  its  present  high  development.  Out  of  the 
necessities  of  mankind  for  the  organization  of  society 
came  the  gens ;  out  of  the  gens  came  the  chief,  and  the 
tribe  with  its  council  of  chiefs ;  out  of  the  tribe  came  by 
segmentation  the  group  of  tribes,  afterwards  re-united  in 
a  confederacy,  and  finally  consolidated  by  coalescence  into 
a  nation  ;  out  of  the  experience  of  the  council  came  the 
necessity  of  an  assembly  of  the  people  with  a  division  of 
the  powers  of  the  government  between  them  ;  and  finally, 
out  of  the  military  necessities  of  the  united  tribes  came 
the  general  military  commander,  who  became  in  time  a 
third  power  in  the  government,  but  subordinate  to  the 
two  superior  powers.    It  was  the  germ  of  the  office  of  the 


fHia  ROMAN  CURIA,  TRIBE  AND  POPULUS  3^1 

subsequent  chief  magistrate,  the  king  and  the  president. 
The  principal  institutions  of  civilized  nations  are  simply 
continuations  of  those  which  germinated  in  savagen-, 
expanded  in  barbarism,  and  which  are  still  subsisting  and 
advancing  in  civilization. 

As  the  Roman  government  existed  at  the  death  of 
Romulus,  it  was  social,  and  not  political ;  it  was  person- 
al, and  not  territorial.  The  three  tribes  were  located,  it 
is  true,  in  separate  and  distinct  areas  within  the  limits 
of  the  city ;  but  this  was  the  prevailing  mode  of  settle- 
ment under  gentile  institutions.  Their  relations  to  each 
other  and  to  the  resulting  society,  as  gentes,  curias  and 
tribes,  were  wholly  personal,  the  government  dealing 
with  them  as  groups  of  persons,  and  with  the  whole  as 
the  Roman  people.  Localized  in  this  manner  within  in- 
closing ramparts,  the  idea  of  a  township  or  city  ward 
would  suggest  itself  when  the  necessity  for  a  change  in 
the  plan  of  government  was  forced  upon  them  by  the 
growing  complexity  of  affairs.  It  was  a  great  change 
that  was  soon  to  be  required  of  them,  to  be  wrought  out 
through  experimental  legislation  —  precisely  the  same 
which  the  Athenians  had  entered  upon  shortly  before  tlie 
time  of  Servius  Tullius.  Rome  was  founded,  and  its  first 
victories  were  won  under  institutions  purely  gentile ;  but 
the  fruits  of  these  achievements  by  their  very  magnitude 
demonstrated  the  inability  of  the  gentes  to  form  the  basis 
of  a  state.  But  it  required  two  centuries  of  intense  activ- 
ity in  the  growing  commonwealth  to  prepare  the  way  for 
the  institution  of  the  second  great  plan  of  government 
based  upon  territory  and  upon  property.  A  withdrawal 
of  governing  powers  from  the  gentes,  curiae  and  tribes, 
and  their  bestowal  upon  new  constituencies  was  the  sac- 
rifice demanded.  Such  a  change  would  become  possible 
only  through  a  conviction  that  the  gentes  could  not  be 
made  to  yield  such  a  form  of  government  as  their  ad- 
vanced condition  demanded.  It  was  practically  a  ques- 
tion of  continuance  in  barbarism,  or  progress  into  civili- 
zation. The  inauguration  of  the  new  system  will  form 
*he  subject  of  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  XIIl 

THE  INSTITUTION   OF  ROMAN    POLITICAL  SOCIETY 

Servius  Tullius,  the  sixth  chief  of  the  Roman  miHtary 
democracy,  came  to  the  succession  about  one  hundred 
and  thirty-three  years  after  the  death  of  Romukis,  as 
near  as  the  date  can  be  ascertained.  ^  This  would  place 
liis  accession  about  576  B.  C.  To  this  remarkable  man 
the  Romans  were  chiefly  indebted  for  the  establishment 
of  their  political  system.  It  will  be  sufficient  to  indicate 
its  main  features,  together  with  some  of  the  reasons 
which  led  to  its  adoption. 

From  the  time  of  Romulus  to  that  of  Servius  Tullius 
the  Romans  consisted  of  two  distinct  classes,  the  populus 
and  the  plebeians.  Both  were  personally  free,  and  both 
entered  the  ranks  of  the  army ;  but  the  former  alone  were 
organized  in  gentes,  curiae  and  tribes,  and  held  the  pow- 
ers of  the  government.  The  plebeians,  on  the  other  hand, 
did  not  belong  to  any  gens,  curia  or  tribe,  and  conse- 
quently were  without  the  government.  ^  They  were  ex- 
cluded from  office,  from  the  eomitia  ciiriata,  and  from 
the  sacred  rites  of  the  gentes.  In  the  time  of  Servius 
they  had  become  nearly  if  not  quite  as  numerous  as  the 
populus.  They^  were  in  the  anomalous  position  of  being 
subject  to  the  military  service,  and  of  possessing  families 
and  property,  which  identified  them  with  the  interests  of 
Rome,  without  being  in  any  sense  connected  wdth  the  gov- 

*    Dlonyslus.      Iv,   1. 

2  Nlebuhr  says:  "The  existence  of  the  plebs  as  acknowl- 
edgedly  a  fi-(-e  and  very  numerous  portion  of  the  nation,  may 
be  traced  back  to  the  felg'n  of  Ancus;  but  before  the  time  of 
Servius  It  was  only  an  aggrepate  of  unconnected  parts,  not  a 
united    regular    whole."— "History    of   Rome,"    \.   c,    1,    315. 

332 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY  S'?,i 

ernment.  Under  gentile  institutions,  as  we  have  seen, 
there  could  be  no  connection  with  the  government  except 
through  a  recognized  gens,  and  the  plebeians  had  no 
gentes.  Such  a  state  of  things,  affecting  so  large  a  por- 
tion of  the  people,  was  dangerous  to  the  commonwealth. 
Admitting  of  no  remedy  under  gentile  institutions,  it 
must  have  furnished  one  of  the  prominent  reasons  for 
attempting  the  overthrow  of  gentile  society,  and  the  sub- 
stitution of  political.  The  Roman  fabric  would,  in  all 
probability,  have  fallen  in  pieces  if  a  remedy  had  not 
been  devised.  It  was  commenced  in  the  time  of  Romu- 
lus, renewed  by  Numa  Pompilius,  and  completed  by 
Servius  Tullius. 

The  origin  both  of  the  plebeians  and  of  the  patricians, 
and  their  subsequent  relations  to  each  other,  have  been 
fruitful  themes  of  discussion  and  of  disagreement.  A 
few  suggestions  may  be  ventured  upon  each  of  these 
questions. 

A  person  was  a  plebeian  because  he  was  not  a  member 
of  a  gens,  organized  with  other  gentes  in  a  curia  and 
tribe.  It  is  easy  to  understand  how  large  numbers  of 
persons  would  have  become  detached  from  the  gentes  of 
their  birth  in  the  unsettled  times  which  preceded  and  fol- 
lowed the  founding  of  Rome.  The  adventurers  who 
flocked  to  the  new  city  from  the  surrounding  tribes,  the 
captives  taken  in  their  wars  and  afterwards  set  free,  and 
the  unattached  persons  mingled  with  the  gentes  trans- 
planted to  Rome,  would  rapidly  furnish  such  a  class.  It 
might  also  well  happen  that  in  filling  up  the  hundred 
gentes  of  each  tribe,  fragments  of  gentes,  and  gentes  hav- 
ing less  than  a  prescribed  number  of  persons,  were  ex- 
cluded. These  unattached  persons,  with  the  fragments  of 
gentes  thus  excluded  from  recognition  and  organization 
in  a  curia,  would  soon  become,  with  their  children  and 
descendants,  a  great  and  increasing  class.  Such  were  the 
Roman  plebeians,  who,  as  such,  were  not  members  of  the 
Roman  gentile  society.  It  seems  to  be  a  fair  inference 
from  the  epithet  applied  to  the  senators  of  the  Luceres, 
thelhird  Roman  tribe  admitted,  who  were  styled  "Fathers 
of  the  Lesser  Gentes,"  that  the  old  gentes  were  reluctant 


134  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

to  acknowledge  their  entire  equality.  For  a  stronger  rea- 
son they  debarred  the  plebeians  from  all  participation  in 
the  government.  When  the  third  tribe  was  filled  up  with 
the  prescribed  number  of  gentes,  the  last  avenue  of  ad- 
mission was  closed,  after  which  the  number  in  the  plebeian 
class  would  increase  with  greater  rapidity.  Niebuhr 
remarks  that  the  existence  of  the  plebeian  class  may  be 
traced  to  the  time  of  Ancus,  thus  implying  that  they 
made  their  first  appearance  at  that  time.  *  He  also  denies 
that  the  clients  were  a  part  of  the  plebeian  body ; '  in  both 
of  which  positions  he  diflfers  from  Dionysius, '  and  from 
Plutarch.*  The  institution  of  the  relation  of  patron  and 
client  is  ascribed  by  the  authors  last  named  to  Romulus, 
and  it  is  recog^nized  by  Suetonius  as  existing  in  the  time 
of  Romulus. '  A  necessity  for  such  an  institution  existed 
in  the  presence  of  a  class  without  a  gentile  status,  and 
without  religious  rites,  who  would  avail  themselves  of  this 
relation  for  the  protection  of  their  persons  and  property, 
and  for  the  access  it  gave  them  to  religious  privileges. 
Members  of  a  gens  would  not  be  without  this  protection 
or  these  privileges ;  neither  would  it  befit  the  dignity  or 
accord  with  the  obligations  of  a  gens  to  allow  one  of  its 
members  to  accept  a  patron  in  another  gens.  The 
unattached  class,  or,  in  other  words,  the  plebeians,  were 
the  only  persons  who  would  naturally  seek  patrons  and 
become  their  clients.  The  clients  formed  no  part  of  the 
populus  for  the  reasons  stated.  It  seems  plain,  notwith- 
standing the  weight  of  Niebuhr's  authority  on  Roman 
c(uestions,  that  the  clients  were  a  part  of  the  plebeian 
body. 

The  next  question  is  one  of  extreme  difficulty,  namely : 
the  origin  and  extent  of  the  patrician  class — whether  it 
originated  with  the  institution  of  the  Roman  Senate,  and 

1  "History  of  Rome."  i,  315. 

2  "That  the  cUents  were  total  stranfcers  to  the  plebeian  com- 
monalty and  did  not  coalesce  with  It  until  late,  when  the  bond 
of  servitude  had  been  loosened,  partly  from  the  houses  of  their 
patrons  dying:  off  or  sinking  Into  decay,  partly  from  the  ad- 
vance of  the  whole  nation  toward  freedom,  will  be  proved  in 
the  sequel  of  this  history."— "History  of  Rome,"  I,  316, 

3  Dionysius,     11,  8. 

4  Plutarch,   "Vlt.  Rom.,"  xlll,  1«. 

5  "Vlt.  Tiberius,"  cap.  1. 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY         335 

was  limited  to  the  senators,  and  to  their  children  and  de- 
scendants ;  or  included  the  entire  populus,  as  distinguished 
from  the  plebeians.  It  is  claimed  by  the  most  eminent 
modern  authorities  that  the  entire  populus  were 
patricians.  Niebuhr,  who  is  certainly  the  first  on  Roman 
questions,  adopts  this  view,  *  to  which  Long,  Schmitz, 
and  others  have  given  their  concurrence.^  But  the 
reasons  assigned  are  not  conclusive.  The  existence  of 
the  patrician  class,  and  of  the  plebeian  class  as  well,  may 
be  traced,  as  stated,  to  the  time  of  Romulus.  ^  If  the 
populus,  who  were  the  entire  body  of  the  people  organ- 
ized in  gentes,  were  all  patricians  at  this  early  day,  the 
distinction  would  have  been  nominal,  as  the  plebeian  class 
was  then  unimportant.  IMoreover,  the  plain  statements 
of  Cicero  and  of  Livy  are  not  reconcilable  with  this  con- 
clusion. Dionysius,  it  is  true,  speaks  of  the  institution  of 
the  patrician  class  as  occurring  before  that  of  the  senate, 
and  as  composed  of  a  limited  number  of  persons  distin- 
guished for  their  birth,  their  virtue,  and  their  wealth; 
thus  excluding  the  poor  and  obscure  in  birth,  although 
they  belonged  to  the  historical  gentes.  *  Admitting  a  class 
of  patricians  without  senatorial  connection,  there  was  still 
a  large  class  remaining  in  the  several  gentes  who  were 
not  patricians.  Cicero  has  left  a  plain  statement  that  the 
senators  and  their  children  were  patricians,  and  without 
referring  to  the  existence  of  any  patrician  class  beyond 
their  number.  When  that  senate  of  Romulus,  he  remarks, 
which  was  constituted  of  the  best  men,  whom  Romulus 
himself  respected  so  highly  that  he  wished  them  to  be 
called  fathers,  and  their  children  patricians,  attempted,  * 
etc.  The  meaning  attached  to  the  word  fathers  (patres) 
as  here  used  was  a  subject  of  disagreement  among  the 
Romans  themselves;  but  the  word  patricii,  for  the  class 
is  formed  upon  patres,  thus  tending  to  show  the  necessary 
connection  of  the  patricians  with  the  senatorial  office. 
Since  each  senator  at  the  outset  represented,  in  all  prob- 

I   "History  of  Rome,"   1.   256,450. 

a    Smith's  "Die.  Articles,  Gens,  Patricii.  and  Plebs." 

3  DlonysiuP,     «,  S;  Plutarch,  "Vit.  Rom.."  xlll, 

4  lb.,     11.  8 

5  "!>•  B*K-'    **   12, 


838  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

ability,  a  gens,  and  the  three  hundred  thus  represented 
all  the  recognized  gentes,  this  fact  could  not  of  itself 
make  all  the  members  of  the  gentes  patricians,  because 
the  dignity  was  limited  to  the  senators,  their  children, 
and  their  posterity.  Livy  is  equally  explicit.  They  were 
certainly  called  fathers,  he  remarks,  on  account  of  their 
ofificial  dignity,  and  their  posterity  (progenies)  patri- 
cians. ^  Under  the  reges  and  also  under  the  republic,  indi- 
viduals were  created  patricians  by  the  government ;  but 
apart  from  the  senatorial  office,  and  special  creation  by 
the  government,  the  rank  could  not  be  obtained.  It  is  not 
improbable  that  a  number  of  persons,  not  admitted  into 
the  senate  when  it  was  instituted,  were  placed  by  public 
act  on  the  same  level  with  the  senators  as  to  the  new 
patrician  rank ;  but  this  would  include  a  small  number 
only  of  the  members  of  the  three  hundred  gentes,  all  of 
whom  were  embraced  in  the  Popnhis  Romamis. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  the  chiefs  of  the  gentes  were 
called  fathers  before  the  time  of  Romulus,  to  indicate  the 
paternal  character  of  the  office ;  and  that  the  office  may 
have  conferred  a  species  of  recognized  rank  upon  their 
posterity.  But  we  have  no  direct  evidence  of  the  fact. 
Assuming  it  to  have  been  the  case,  and  further,  that  the 
senate  at  its  institution  did  not  include  all  the  principal 
chiefs,  and  further  still,  that  when  vacancies  in  the  senate 
were  subsequently  filled,  the  selection  was  made  on  ac- 
count of  merit  and  not  on  account  of  gens,  a  foundation 
for  a  patrician  class  might  have  previously  existed 
independently  of  the  senate.  These  assumptions  might 
be  used  to  explain  the  peculiar  language  of  Cicero, 
namely ;  that  Romulus  desired  that  the  senators  might  be 
called  Fathers,  possibly  because  this  was  already  the 
honored  title  of  the  chiefs  of  the  gentes.-  In  this  way  a 
limited  foundation  for  a  patrician  class  may  be  found  in- 
dependent of  the  senate :  but  it  would  not  be  broad 
enough  to  include  all  the  recognized  gentes.  It  was  in 
connection  with  the  senators  that  the  suggestion  was 
made  that  their  children  and  descendants  should  be  called 

I      Llvy,     1,   8. 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL,  SOCIETY  g87 

patricians.     The  same   statement   is  repeated  by   Pater- 
culus.  ^ 

It  follows  that  there  could  be  no  patrician  gens  and  no 
plebeian  gens,  although  particular  families  in  one  gens 
might  be  patricians,  and  in  another  plebeians.  There  is 
some  confusion  also  upon  this  point.  All  the  adult  male 
members  of  the  Fabian  gens,  to  the  number  of  three 
hundred  and  six,  were  patricians. '  It  must  be  explained 
by  the  supposition  that  all  the  families  in  this  gens  could 
trace  their  descent  from  senators,  or  to  some  public  act 
by  which  their  ancestors  were  raised  to  the  patriciate. 
There  were  of  course  patrician  families  in  many  gentes, 
and  at  a  later  day  patrician  and  plebeian  families  in 
the  same  gens.  Thus  the  Claudii  and  Marcelli,  before 
referred  to  {supra  p.  294),  were  two  families  of  the 
Claudian  gens,  but  the  Claudii  alone  were  patricians.  It 
will  be  borne  in  mind,  that  prior  to  the  time  of  Servius 
Tullius  the  Romans  were  divided  into  two  classes,  the 
poptdus  and  the  plebeians;  but  that  after  his  time,  and 
particularly  after  the  Licinian  legislation  (367  B.  C),  by 
which  all  the  dignities  of  the  state  were  opened  to  every 
citizen,  the  Roman  people,  of  the  degree  of  freemen,  fell 
into  two  political  classes,  which  may  be  distinguished  as 
the  aristocracy  and  the  commonalty  The  former  class 
consisted  of  the  senators,  and  those  descended  from 
senators,  together  with  those  who  had  held  either  of  the 
three  curule  offices,  (consul,  praetor,  and  curule  aedile) 
and  their  descendants.  The  commonalty  were  now 
Roman  citizens.  The  gentile  organization  had  fallen  into 
decadence,  and  the  old  division  could  no  longer,  be  main- 
tained. Persons,  who  in  the  first  period  as  belonging  to 
the  populus,  could  not  be  classed  with  the  plebeians, 
would  in  the  subsequent  period  belong  to  the  aristocracy 
without  being  patricians.  The  Claudii  could  trace  their 
descent  from  Appius  Claudius  who  was  made  a  senator 
in  the  time  of  Romulus ;  but  the  Marcelli  could  not  trace 
their  descent  from  him,  nor  from  any  other  senator, 
although,  as  Niebuhr  remarks,  "equal  to  the  Apii  in  the 

I  V«lleu8  Paterculus,     1,  8. 
•  JLlvy.     11,  49. 


838  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

splendor  of  the  honors  they  attained  to,  and  incomparably 
more  useful  to  the  commonwealth."^  This  is  a  sufficient 
explanation  of  the  position  of  the  Marcelli  without 
resorting  to  the  fanciful  hypothesis  of  Niebuhr,  that  the 
Marcelli  had  lost  patrician  rank  through  a  marriage  of 
disparagement.^ 

The  patrician  class  were  necessarily  numerous,  because 
the  senators,'  rarely  less  than  three  hundred,  were  chosen 
as  often  as  vacancies  occurred,  thus  constantly  including 
new  families ;  and  because  it  conferred  patrician  rank  on 
their  posterity.  Others  were  from  time  to  time  made 
patricians  by  act  of  the  state,'  This  distinction,  at  first 
probably  of  little  value,  became  of  great  importance  with 
their  increase  in  wealth,  numbers  and  power ;  and  it 
changed  the  complexion  of  Roman  society.  The  full 
effect  of  introducing  a  privileged  class  in  Roman  gentile 
society  was  not  probably  appreciated  at  the  time ;  and  it 
is  questionable  whether  this  institution  did  not  exercise 
a  more  injurious  than  beneficial  influence  upon  the 
subsequent  career  of  the  Roman  people. 

When  the  gentes  had  ceased  to  be  organizations  for 
governmental  purposes  under  the  new  political  system, 
the  populus  no  longer  remained  as  distinguished  from  the 
plebeians  ;*  but  the  shadow  of  the  old  organization  and  of 
the  old  distinction  remained  far  into  the  republic.  *  The 
plebeians  under  the  new  system  were  Roman  citizens, 
but  they  were  now  the  commonalty ;  the  question  of  the 
connection  or  non-connection  with  a  gens  not  entering 
into  the  distinction.  • 

From  Romulus  to  Servius  Tullius  the  Roman  organiza- 
tion, as  before  stated,  was  simply  a  gentile  society,  with- 
out relation  to  territory  or  to  property.  All  we  find  is 
a  series  of  aggregates  of  persons,  in  gentes,  curiae  and 
tribes,  by  means  of  which  the  people  were  dealt  with  by 
the  government  as  groups  of  persons  forming  these 
several  organic  unities.  Their  condition  was  precisely 
like  that  of  the  Athenians  prior  to  the  time  of  Solon.   But 

I  "History  of  Rome,"  1,  246. 
»  lb..     1,   246. 

3  Llvy,     Iv,   4. 

4  Llvy.,     Iv,  51. 


IXSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY  339 

they  had  instituted  a  senate  in  the  place  of  the  old  council 
of  chiefs,  a  comitia  curiata  in  the  place  of  the  old 
assembly  of  the  people,  and  had  chosen  a  military  com- 
mander, with  the  additional  functions  of  a  priest  and 
judge.  With  a  government  of  three  powers,  co-ordinated 
with  reference  to  their  principal  necessities,  and  wath  a 
coalescence  of  the  three  tribes,  composed  of  an  equal 
number  of  gentes  and  curise,  into  one  people,  they  pos- 
sessed a  higher  and  more  complete  governmental  organi- 
zation than  the  Latin  tribes  had  before  attained.  A  num- 
erous class  had  gradually  developed,  however,  who  w^ere 
without  the  pale  of  the  government,  and  without  religious 
privileges,  excepting  that  portion  who  had  passed  into 
the  relation  of  clients.  If  not  a  dangerous  class,  their 
exclusion  from  citizenship,  and  from  all  participation  in 
the  government,  was  detrimental  to  the  commonwealth. 
A  municipality  was  growing  up  upon  a  scale  of  magni- 
tude unknown  in  their  previous  experience,  requiring  a 
special  organization  to  conduct  its  local  affairs.  A 
necessity  for  a  change  in  the  plan  of  government  must 
have  forced  itself  more  and  more  upon  the  attention  of 
thoughtful  men.  The  increase  of  numbers  and  of  wealth, 
and  the  difficulty  of  managing  their  affairs,  now  complex 
from  weight  of  numbers  and  diversity  of  interests,  began 
to  reveal  the  fact,  it  must  be  supposed,  that  they  could  not 
hold  together  under  gentile  institutions.  A  conclusion  of 
this  kind  is  required  to  explain  the  several  expedients 
which  were  tried. 

Numa,  the  successor  of  Romulus,  made  the  first  signifi- 
cant movement,  because  it  reveals  the  existence  of  an 
impression,  that  a  great  power  could  not  rest  upon  gentes 
as  the  basis  of  a  system.  He  attempted  to  traverse  the 
gentes,  as  Theseus  did,  by  dividing  the  people  into 
classes,  some  eight  in  number,  according  to  their  arts  and 
trades.  *^  Plutarch,  who  is  the  chief  authority  for  this 
statement,  speaks  of  this  division  of  the  people  according 
to  their  vocations  as  the  most  admired  of  Numa's  insti- 
tutions ;  and  remarks  further,  that  it  was  designed  to  take 


I  Plutarch,  "Vlt.  Numa."  xvll,  20. 


840  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

away  the  distinction  between  Latin  and  Sabine,  both 
name  and  thing,  by  mixing  them  together  in  a  new 
distribution.  But  as  he  did  not  invest  the  classes  wuth  the 
powers  exercised  by  the  gentes,  the  measure  failed,  like 
the  similar  attempt  of  Theseus,  and  for  the  same  reason. 
Each  guild,  as  we  are  assured  by  Plutarch,  had  its 
separate  hall,  court  and  religious  observances.  These 
records,  though  traditionary,  of  the  same  experiment  in 
Attica  and  at  Rome,  made  for  the  same  object,  for  similar 
reasons,  and  by  the  same  instrumentalities,  render  the 
inference  reasonable  that  the  experiment  as  stated  was 
actually  tried  in  each  case. 

Servius  Tullius  instituted  the  new  system,  and  placed 
it  upon  a  foundation  where  it  remained  to  the  close  of  the 
republic,  although  changes  were  afterwards  made  in  the 
nature  of  improvements.  His  period  (about  576 — 533 
B.  C.)  follows  closely  that  of  Solon  (596  B.  C),  and  pre- 
cedes that  of  Cleisthenes  (509  B.  C).  The  legislation 
ascribed  to  him,  and  which  was  obviously  modeled  upon 
that  of  Solon,  may  be  accepted  as  having  occured  as  early 
as  the  time  named,  because  the  system  was  in  practical 
operation  when  the  republic  was  established  509  B.  C, 
within  the  historical  period.  Moreover,  the  new  political 
system  may  as  properly  be  ascribed  to  him  as  great 
measures  have  been  attributed  to  other  men,  although  in 
both  cases  the  legislator  does  little  more  than  formulate 
what  experience  had  already  suggested  and  pressed  upon 
his  attention.  The  three  principal  changes  which  set 
aside  the  gentes  and  inaugurated  political  society  based 
upon  territory  and  upon  property,  were :  first,  the  substi- 
tution of  classes,  formed  upon  the  measure  of  individual 
wealth,  in  the  place  of  the  gentes ;  second,  che  institution 
of  the  comitia  centiiriata,  as  the  new  popular  assemblv, 
in  the  place  of  the  comitia  curiata,  the  assembly  of  the 
gentes,  with  a  transfer  of  the  substantial  powers  of  the 
latter  to  the  former;  and  third,  the  creation  of  four  city 
'ivards,  in  the  nature  of  townships,  circumscribed  by  metes 
and  bounds  and  named  as  territorial  areas,  in  which  the 
residents  of  each  ward  were  required  to  enroll  their 
names  and  register  their  property. 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY         841 

Imitating  Solon,  with  whose  plan  of  government  he 
was  doubtless  familiar,  Servius  divided  the  people  into 
five  classes,  according  to  the  value  of  their  property,  the 
efifect  of  which  was  to  concentrate  in  one  class  the 
wealthiest  men  of  the  several  gentes.  ^  Each  class  \yas 
then  subdivided  into  centuries,  the  number  in  each  being 
established  arbitrarily  without  regard  to  the  actual  num- 
ber of  persons  it  contained,  and  with  one  vote  to  each 
century  in  the  comitia.  The  amount  of  political  power 
to  be  held  by  each  class  was  thus  determined  by  the  num- 
ber of  centuries  given  to  each.  Thus,  the  first  class  con- 
sisted of  eighty  centuries,  with  eighty  votes  in  the  comitia 
centuriata;  the  second  class  of  twenty  centuries,  to  which 
two  centuries  of  artisans  were  attached,  with  twenty-two 
votes :  the  third  class  of  twenty  centuries,  with  twenty 
votes ;  the  fourth  class  of  twenty,  to  which  two  centuries 
of  horn-blowers  and  trumpeters  were  attached,  with 
twenty-two  votes;  and  the  fifth  class  of  thirty  centuries, 
with  thirty  votes.  In  addition  to  these,  the  equites 
consisted  of  eighteen  centuries,  with  eighteen  votes.  To 
these  classes  Dionysius  adds  a  sixth  class,  consisting  of 
one  century,  with  one  vote.  It  was  composed  of  those 
who  had  no  property,  or  less  than  the  amount  required 
for  admission  into  the  fifth  class.  They  neither  paid 
taxes,  nor  served  in  war,  ^  The  whole  number  of  cen- 
turies in  the  six  classes  with  the  equites  added  made  a 
total  of  one  hundred  and  ninety-three,  according  to 
Dionysius.  ^  Livy,  agreeing  with  the  former  as  to  the 
number  of  regular  centuries  in  the  five  classes,  diflfers 
from  him  by  excluding  the  sixth  class,  the  persons  being 
formed  into  one  century  with  one  vote,  and  included  in  or 
attached  to  the  fifth  class.  He  also  makes  three  centuries 
of  horn-blowers  instead  of  two,  and  the  whole  number  of 
centuries  one  more  than  Dionysius.*  Cicero  remarks  that 
ninety-six  centuries   were  a   minority,   which   would  be 


1  The  property  (lualiflcation  for  the  first  class  was  100,000 
asses;  for  the  second  class,  75,000  asses;  for  third.  50,000;  for 
the  fourth,   25,000;   and  for  the  fifth;  11,00(1   asses.—  Livy,     1,   43. 

2  Dionysius,     Iv.  20. 

3  lb.,      Iv,   16,   17,   18. 

4  Livy,     1,  43. 


848  ANCIENT  SOCIETlf 

equally  true  under  either  statement.  ^  The  centuries  of 
each  class  were  divided  into  seniors  and  juniors,  of  which 
the  senior  centuries  were  composed  of  such  persons  as 
were  above  the  age  of  fifty-five  years,  and  were  charged 
with  the  duty,  as  soldiers,  of  defending  the  city;  while  the 
junior  centuries  consisted  of  those  persons  who  were 
below  this  age  and  above  seventeen,  and  were  charged 
with  external  military  enterprises.  "^  The  annature  of 
each  class  was  prescribed  and  made  different  for  each.^ 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  control  of  the  government, 
so  far  as  the  assembly  of  the  people  could  influence  its 
action,  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  first  class,  and  the 
equites.  They  held  together  ninety-eight  votes,  a 
majority  of  the  whole.  Each  century  agreed  upon  its 
vote  separately  when  assembled  in  the  comitta  ceutiiriata, 
precisely  as  each  curia  had  been  accustomed  to  do  in  the 
comitia  curiata.  In  taking  a  vote  upon  any  public  ques- 
tion, the  equites  were  called  first,  and  then  the  first  class.  * 
If  they  agreed  in  their  votes  it  decided  the  question,  and 
the  remaining  centuries  were  not  called  upon  to  vote ;  but 
if  they  disagreed,  the  second  class  was  called,  and  so  on 
to  the  last,  unless  a  majority  sooner  appeared. 

Tlie  powers  formerly  exercised  by  the  coinifia  curiata, 
now  transferred  to  the  comitia  centnriata,  were  enlarged 
in  some  slight  particulars  in  the  subsequent  period.  It 
elected  all  officers  and  magistrates  on  the  nomination  of 
the  senate ;  it  enacted  or  rejected  laws  proposed  by  the 
senate,  no  measure  becoming  a  law  without  its  sanction ; 
it  repealed  existing  laws  on  the  proposition  of  the  same 
body,  if  they  chose  to  do  so;  and  it  declared  war  on  the 
same  recommendation.  But  the  senate  concluded  peace 
without  consulting  the  assembly.  An  appeal  in  all  cases 
involving  life  could  be  taken  to  this  assembly  as  the 
highest  judicial  tribunal  of  the  state.  These  powers  were 
substantial,  but  limited — control  over  the  finances  being 

1  "De  Rep.."   U,   20. 

2  DJonyslus.      tv,   16. 

3  Llvy.      1,    43. 

4  Llvy,  1,  43;  But  DionysluB  places  the  equites  In  the  flrst 
class,  and  remarks  that  this  class  wks  flrst  called.—  Dionyslus. 
Iv,  20. 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY         343 

excluded.  A  majority  of  the  votes,  however,  were  lodged 
with  the  first  class,  including  the  equites,  which  embraced 
the  body  of  the  patricians,  as  must  be  supposed,  and  the 
wealthiest  citizens.  Property  and  not  numbers  controlled 
the  government.  They  were  able,  however,  to  create  a 
body  of  laws  in  the  course  of  time  which  afforded  equal 
protection  to  all,  and  thus  tended  to  redeem  the  worst 
effects  of  the  inequalities  of  the  system. 

The  meetings  of  the  comitia  were  held  in  the  Campus 
Martins  annually  for  the  election  of  magistrates  and  offi- 
cers, and  at  other  times  when  the  public  necessities 
required.  The  people  assembled  by  centuries,  and  by 
classes  under  their  officers,  organized  as  an  army 
(exercitus)  ;  for  the  centuries  and  classes  were  designed 
to  subserve  all  the  purposes  of  a  military  as  well  as  a  civil 
organization.  At  the  first  muster  under  Servius  Tullius, 
eighty  thousand  citizen  soldiers  appeared  in  the  Campus 
Martins  under  arms,  each  man  in  his  proper  century, 
each  century  in  its  class,  and  each  class  by  itself.^  Every 
member  of  a  century  was  now  a  citizen  of  Rome,  w^hich 
was  the  most  important  fruit  of  the  new  political  system. 
In  the  time  of  the  republic  the  consuls,  and  in  their 
absence,  the  praetor,  had  power  to  convene  the  comitia. 
which  was  presided  over  by  the  person  who  caused  it  to 
assemble. 

Such  a  government  appears  to  us,  in  the  light  of  our 
more  advanced  experience,  both  rude  and  clumsy ;  but  It 
was  a  sensible  improvement  upon  the  previous  gentile 
government,  defective  and  illiberal  as  it  appears.  Under 
it,  Rome  became  mistress  of  the  world.  The  element  of 
property,  now  rising  into  commanding  importance, 
determined  its  character.  It  had  brought  aristocracy  and 
privilege  into  prominence,  which  seized  the  opportunity 
to  withdraw  the  control  of  the  government  in  a  great 
measure  from  the  hands  of  the  people,  and  bestow  it  upon 
the  men  of  property.  It  was  a  movement  in  the  opposite 
direction  from  that  to  which  the  democratic  principles  in- 
herited from  the  gentes  naturally  tended.     Against  the 

I    Llvy,     1,  44;  Dlonysius  states  the  number  at  84,700.— Iv,  22. 


844  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

new  elements  of  aristocracy  and  privilege  now  incorpo- 
rated in  their  governmental  institutions,  the  Roman 
plebeians  contended  throughout  the  period  of  the  repub- 
lic, and  at  times  with  some  measure  of  success.  But 
patrician  rank  and  property,  possessed  by  the  higher 
classes,  were  too  powerful  for  the  wiser  and  grander 
doctrines  of  equal  rights  and  equal  privileges  represented 
by  the  plebeians.  It  was  even  then  far  too  heavy  a  tax 
upon  Roman  society  to  carry  a  privileged  class. 

Cicero,  patriot  and  noble  Roman  as  he  was,  approved 
and  commended  this  gradation  of  the  people  into  classes, 
with  the  bestowment  of  a  controlling  influence  in  the 
government  upon  the  minority  of  citizens.  Servius 
Tullius,  he  remarks,  "having  created  a  large  number  of 
equites  from  the  common  mass  of  the  people,  divided  the 
remainder  into  five  classes,  distinguishing  between  the 
seniors  and  juniors,  which  he  so  constituted  as  to  place 
the  suffrages,  not  in  the  hands  of  the  multitude,  but  of  the 
men  of  property ;  taking  care  to  make  it  a  rule  of  ours, 
as  it  ought  to  be  in  every  government,  that  the  greatest 
number  should  not  have  the  greatest  weight."^  In  the 
light  of  the  experience  of  the  intervening  two  thousand 
years,  it  may  well  be  observed  that  the  inequality  of  privi- 
leges, and  the  denial  of  the  right  of  self-government  here 
commended,  created  and  developed  that  mass  of  ignorance 
and  corruption  which  ultimately  destroyed  both  govern- 
ment and  people.  The  human  race  is  gradually  learning 
the  simple  lesson,  that  the  people  as  a  whole  are  wiser  for 
the  public  good  and  the  public  prosperity,  than  any  privi- 
leged class  of  men,  however  refined  and  cultivated,  have 
ever  been,  or,  by  any  possibility,  can  ever  become.  Gov- 
ernments over  societies  the  most  advanced  are  still  in  a 
transitional  stage ;  and  they  are  necessarily  and  logically 
moving,  as  President  Grant,  not  without  reason,  intimated 
in  his  last  inaugural  address,  in  the  direction  of  democ- 
racy;  that  form  of  self-government  which  represents 
and  expresses  the  average  intelligence  and  virtue  of  a 
free  and  educated  people. 


I   Cicero,    "De   Rep.,"   li,   22. 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY  34 ') 

The  property  classes  subserved  the  useful  purpose  of 
breaking  up  the  gentes,  as  the  basis  of  a  governmental 
system,  by  transferring  their  powers  to  a  different  body. 
It  was  evidently  the  principal  object  of  the  Servian 
legislation  to  obtain  a  deliverance  from  the  gentes,  which 
were  close  corporations,  and  to  give  the  new  government 
a  basis  wide  enough  to  include  all  the  inhabitants  of  Rome, 
with  the  exception  of  the  slaves.  After  the  classes  had 
accomplished  this  work,  it  might  have  been  expected  tliai 
they  would  have  died  out  as  they  did  at  Athens ;  and  that 
city  wards  and  country  townships,  with  their  inhabitants 
organized  as  bodies  politic,  would  have  become  the  basis 
of  the  new  political  system,  as  they  rightfully  and  logic- 
ally should.  But  the  municipal  organization  of  Rome 
prevented  this  consummation.  It  gained  at  the  outset, 
and  maintained  to  the  end  the  central  position  in  the  gov- 
ernment, to  which  all  areas  without  were  made  sub- 
ordinate. It  presents  the  anomaly  of  a  great  central 
municipal  government  expanded,  in  effect,  first  over  Italy, 
and  finally  over  the  conquered  provinces  of  three  conti- 
nents. The  five  classes,  with  some  modifications  of  the 
manner  of  voting,  remained  to  the  end  of  the  republic. 
The  creation  of  a  new  assembly  of  the  people  to  take  the 
place  of  the  old,  discloses  the  radical  character  of  the 
Servian  constitution.  These  classes  would  never  have 
acquired  vitality  v/ithout  a  newly  constituted  assembly, 
investing  them  with  political  powers.  With  the  increase 
of  wealth  and  population  the  duties  and  responsibilities 
of  this  assembly  were  much  increased.  It  was  evidently 
the  intention  of  Servius  Tnllius  that  it  should  extinguish 
the  comitia  curiata,  and  with  it  the  power  of  the  gentes. 

This  legislator  is  said  to  have  instituted  the  conutia 
trihnta,  a  separate  assembly  of  each  local  tribe  or  ward, 
whose  chief  duties  related  to  the  assessment  and  collec- 
tion of  taxes,  and  to  furnishing  contingents  of  troops. 
At  a  later  day  this  assembly  elected  the  tribunes  of  the 
people.  The  ward  was  the  natural  unit  of  their  political 
system,  and  the  centre  where  local  self-governinent  should 
have  been  established  had  the  Roman  people  wished  to 


846  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

create  a  democratic  state.  But  the  senate  and  the  property 
classes  had  forestalled  them  from  that  career. 

One  of  the  first  acts  ascribed  to  Servius  was  the  insti- 
tution of  the  census.  Livy  pronounces  the  census  a  most 
salutary  measure  for  an  empire  about  to  become  so  great, 
according  to  which  the  duties  of  peace  and  of  war  were 
to  be  performed,  not  individually  as  before,  but  according 
to  the  measure  of  personal  wealth.'  Each  person  was 
required  to  enroll  himself  in  the  ward  of  his  residence, 
with  a  statement  of  the  amount  of  his  property.  It  was 
done  in  the  presence  of  the  censor ;  and  the  lists  when 
completed  furnished  the  basis  upon  which  the  classes 
were  formed.  ^  This  was  accompanied  by  a  very  remark- 
able act  for  the  period,  the  creation  of  four  city  wards, 
circumscribed  by  boundaries,  and  distinguished  by  appro- 
priate names.  In  point  of  time  it  was  earlier  than  the  in- 
stitution of  the  Attic  deme  by  Cleisthenes;  but  the  two 
were  quite  different  in  their  relations  to  the  government. 
The  Attic  deme,  as  has  been  shown,  was  organized  as  a 
body  politic  with  a  similar  registry  of  citizens  and  of 
their  property,  and  having  besides  a  complete  local  self- 
government,  with  an  elective  magistracy,  judiciary  and 
priesthood.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Roman  ward  was  a 
geographical  area,  with  a  registry  of  citizens  and  of  their 
property,  with  a  local  organization,  a  tribune  and  other 
elective  offices,  and  with  an  assembly.  For  a  limited 
number  of  special  objects  the  inhabitants  of  the  wards 
were  dealt  with  by  the  government  through  their  terri- 
torial relations.  But  the  government  of  the  ward  did  not 
possess  the  solid  attributes  of  that  of  the  Attic  deme.  It 
was  a  nearer  copy  of  the  previous  Athenian  naucrary, 
which  not  unlikely  furnished  the  model,  as  the  Solonian 
classes  did  of  the  .Servian.  Dionysius  remarks,  that  after 
Servius  Tullius  had  inclosed  the  seven  hills  with  one  wall 
he  divided  the  city  into  four  parts,  and  gave  the  names  of 
the  hills  to  the  re-divisions :  to  the  first,  Palatina,  to  the 
second,  Suburra,  to  the  third,  CoUina,  and  to  the  fourth, 
Esquilina ;  and  made  the  city  consist  of  four  parts,  which 

I  Llvy,     1.  42. 

»  Dionysius,     Iv.  15. 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY  347 

before  consisted  of  three ;  and  he  ordered  the  people  who 
dwelt  in  each  of  the  four  regions,  like  villagers,  not  to 
take  any  other  dwelling,  nor  to  pay  taxes  elsewhere,  nor 
give  in  their  names  as  soldiers  elsewhere,  nor  pay  their 
assessments  for  military  purposes  and  other  needs,  which 
each  must  furnish  for  the  common  welfare;  for  these 
things  were  no  longer  to  be  done  according  to  the  three 
consanguine  tribes,  but  according  to  the  four  local  tribes, 
which  last  had  been  arranged  by  himself ;  and  he  appoint- 
ed commanders  over  each  tribe,  as  phylarchs  or 
comarchs,  whom  he  directed  to  note  what  house  each 
inhabited.^  Mommsen  observes  that  "each  of  these  four 
levy-districts  had  to  furnish  the  fourth  part  not  only  of 
the  force  as  a  whole,  but  of  each  of  its  military  subdivis- 
ions, so  that  each  legion  and  each  century  numbered  an 
equal  proportion  of  conscripts  from  each  region  ;  evident- 
ly for  the  purpose  of  merging  all  distinctions  of  a  gentile 
and  local  nature  in  one  common  levy  of  the  community, 
and  especially  of  binding,  through  the  powerful  leveling 
influence  of  the  military  spirit,  the  meteoci  and  the 
burgesses  into  one  people."* 

In  like  manner,  the  surrounding  country  under  the 
government  of  Rome  was  organized  in  townships  (tribus 
rusticae),  the  number  of  which  is  stated  at  twenty-six  by 
some  writers,  and  at  thirty-one  by  others;  making,  with 
the  four  city  wards,  a  total  of  thirty-one  in  one  case,  and 
of  thirtv-five  in  the  other.  ^  The  total  number  was  never 
increased  beyond  thirty-five.  These  townships  did  not 
become  integral  in  the  sense  of  participating  in  the  admin- 
istration of  the  government. 

As  finally  established  under  the  Servian  constitution. 
the  government  was  cast  in  the  form  in  which  it  remained 
during  the  existence  of  the  republic ;  the  consuls  taking 
the  place  of  the  previous  military  commanders.  It  was 
not  based  upon  territory  in  the    exclusive    sense    of    the 

I  Dlonysius,     iv,  14. 

a   "History  of  Rome,  1.  c,"  Scrlbner's  ed.,  i,  136. 

3  Dlonysius,     iv,  15;  Niebuhr  has  furnished  the  names  of  six- 
teen country  townships,   as  follows:   Aemilian.  Camilian,   Cluen- 
tian.   Cornelian.   Fabian.   Galerian.   Horatlan,   Lemonlan,   Menen- 
lan,   Paperian,   Romilian,   Serbian,  Veturlan,  Claudlan.— "History 
of  Rome."  i.   320.  note. 


848  ANCIENT  SOCtETf 

Athenian  government,  or  in  the  modern  sense ;  ascending 
from  the  township  or  ward,  the  unit  of  organization,  to 
the  county  or  arrondissement,  and  from  the  latter  to  the 
state,  each  organized  and  invested  with  governmental 
functions  as  constituents  of  a  whole.  The  central  gov- 
ernment overshadowed  and  atrophied  the  parts.  It  rested 
more  upon  property  than  upon  territory,  this  being  made 
the  commanding  element,  as  is  shown  by  the  lodgment  of 
the  controlling  power  of  the  government  in  the  highest 
property  classes.  It  had,  nevertheless,  a  territorial  basis 
as  well,  since  it  recognized  and  used  territorial  subdivi- 
sions for  citizenship,  and  for  financial  and  military  ob- 
jects, in  which  the  citizen  was  dealt  with  through  his 
territorial  relations. 

The  Romans  were  now  carried  fairly  out  of  gentile 
society  into  and  under  the  second  great  plan  of  govern- 
ment, founded  upon  territory  and  upon  property.  They 
had  left  gentilism  and  barbarism  behind  them,  and 
entered  upon  a  new  career  of  civilization.  Henceforth 
the  creation  and  protection  of  property  became  the 
primary  objects  of  the  government,  with  a  superadded 
career  of  conquest  for  domination  over  distant  tribes  and 
nations.  This  great  change  of  institutions,  creating  polit- 
ical society  as  distinguished  from  gentile  society,  was 
simply  the  introduction  of  the  new  elements  of  territory 
and  property,  making  the  latter  a  power  in  the  govern- 
ment, which  before  had  been  simply  an  influence.  Had 
the  wards  and  rustic  townships  been  organized  with  full 
powers  of  local  self-government,  and  the  senate  been 
made  elective  by  these  local  constituencies  without 
distinction  of  classes,  the  resulting  government  would 
have  been  a  democracy,  like  the  Athenian ;  for  these  local 
governments  would  have  moulded  the  state  into  their 
own  likeness.  The  senate,  with  the  hereditary  rank  it 
conferred,  and  the  property  basis  f|ualif\ing  the  voting 
power  in  the  assembly  of  the  people,  turned  the  scale 
against  democratical  institutions,  and  produced  a  mixed 
government,  partly  aristocratic  and  partly  democratic ; 
eminently  calculated  to  engender  perpetual  animosity 
between  the  two  classes  of  citizens  thus  deliberatelv  and 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY  349 

uiirtecessarily  created  by  affirmative  legislation.  It  is 
plain,  I  think,  that  the  people  were  circumvented  by  the 
Servian  constitution  and  had  a  government  put  upon 
them  which  the  majority  would  have  rejected  had  they 
fully  comprehended  its  probable  results.  The  evidence  is 
conclusive  of  the  antecedent  democratical  principles  of 
the  gentes,  which,  however  exclusive  as  against  all 
persons  not  in  their  communion,  were  carried  out  fully 
among  themselves.  The  evidence  of  this  free  spirit  and 
of  their  free  institutions  is  so  decisive  that  the  proposi- 
tion elsewdiere  stated,  that  gentilism  is  incompatible  v.dth 
monarchy,  seems  to  be  incontrovertible. 

As  a  whole,  the  Roman  government  was  anomalous. 
The  overshadowing  municipality  of  Rome,  made  the 
centre  of  the  state  in  its  plan  of  government,  was  one  of 
the  producing  causes  of  its  novel  character.  The  primary 
organization  of  the  people  into  an  army  with  the  military 
spirit  it  fostered  created  the  cohesive  force  wdiich  held  the 
republic  together,  and  afterwards  the  empire.  With  a 
selective  senate  holding  office  for  life,  and  possessing 
substantial  powers ;  with  a  personal  rank  passing  to  their 
children  and  descendants ;  with  an  elective  magistracy 
graded  to  the  needs  of  a  central  metropolis ;  with  an 
assembly  of  the  people  organized  into  property  classes, 
possessing  an  unequal  suffrage,  but  holding  both  an  affir- 
mative and  a  negative  upon  all  legislation ;  and  with  an 
elaborate  military  organization,  no  other  government 
strictly  analogous  has  appeared  among  men.  It  was 
artificial,  illogical,  approaching  a  monstrosity ;  but  cap- 
able of  wonderful  achievements,  because  of  its  military 
spirit,  and  because  the  Romans  were  endowed  with 
remarkable  powers  for  organizing  and  managing  affairs. 
The  patchwork  in  its  composition  was  the  product  of  the 
sjuperior  craft  of  the  wealthy  classes  who  intended  to 
seize  the  substance  of  power  while  they  pretended  to  re- 
spect the  rights  and  interests  of  all. 

When  the  new  political  system  became  established,  the 
Old  one  did  not  immediately  disappear.  The  functions  of 
the  senate  and  of  the  military  commander  remained  as 
before ;   but   the   property   classes  took  the  place  of  the 


350  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

gentes,  and  the  assembly  of  the  classes  took  the  place  of 
the  assembly  of  the  gentes.  Radical  as  the  changes  were, 
they  were  limited,  in  the  main,  to  these  particulars,  and 
came  in  without  friction  or  violence.  The  old  assembly 
(comitia  curia ta)  was  allowed  to  retain  a  portion  of  its 
powers,  which  kept  alive  for  a  long  period  of  time  the 
organizations  of  the  gentes,  curiae  and  consanguine  tribes. 
It  still  conferred  the  imperium  upon  all  the  higher  magi- 
strates after  their  election  was  completed,  though  in 
time  it  became  a  matter  of  form  merely ;  it  inaugurated 
certain  priests,  and  regulated  the  religious  observances 
of  the  curiae.  This  state  of  things  continued  down  to  the 
time  of  the  first  Punic  war,  after  which  the  comitia 
curiata  lost  its  importance  and  soon  fell  into  oblivion. 
'Both  the  assembly  and  the  curiae  were  superseded  rather 
than  abolished,  and  died  out  from  inanition ;  but  the 
gentes  remained  far  into  the  empire,  not  as  an  organiza- 
tion, for  that  also  died  out  in  time,  but  as  a  pedigree  and 
a  lineage.  Thus  the  transition  from  gentile  into  political 
society  was  gradually  but  effectually  accomplished,  and 
the  second  great  plan  of  human  government  was  substi- 
tuted by  the  Romans  in  the  place  of  the  first  which  had 
prevailed  from  time  immemorial. 

After  an  immensely  protracted  duration,  running  back 
of  the  separate  existence  of  the  Aryan  family,  and  re- 
ceived by  the  Latin  tribes  from  their  remote  ancestors, 
the  gentile  organization  finally  surrendered  its  existence, 
among  the  Romans,  to  the  demands  of  civilization.  It 
had  held  exclusive  possession  of  society  through  these 
several  ethnical  periods,  and  until  it  had  won  by  experi- 
ence all  the  elements  of  civilization,  which  it  then  proved 
unable  to  manage.  Mankind  owe  a  debt  of  gratitude  to 
their  savage  ancestors  for  devising  an  institution  able  to 
carry  the  advancing  portion  of  the  human  race  out  of 
savagery  into  barbarism,  and  through  the  successive 
stages  of  the  latter  into  civilization.  It  also  accumulated 
by  experience  the  intelligence  and  knowledge  necessary 
to  devise  political  society  while  the  institution  yet  re- 
mained. It  holds  a  position  on  the  great  chart  of  human 
progress  second  to  none  in  its  influence,  in  its  achieve- 


INSTITUTION  OF  ROMAN  POLITICAL  SOCIETY  351 

ments  and  in  its  history.  As  a  plan  of  government,  the 
gentile  organization  was  unequal  to  the  wants  of  civilized 
man ;  but  it  is  something  to  be  said  in  its  remembrance 
that  it  developed  from  t!ie  germ  the  principal  govern- 
mental institutions  of  modern  civilized  states.  Among 
others,  as  before  stated,  out  of  the  ancient  council  of 
chiefs  came  the  modern  senate ;  out  of  the  ancient 
assembly  of  the  people  came  the  modern  representative 
assembly,  the  two  together  constituting  the  modern  legis- 
lature ;  out  of  the  ancient  general  military  commander 
came  the  modern  chief  magistrate,  whether  a  feudal  or 
constitutional  king,  an  emperor  or  a  president,  the  latter 
being  the  natural  and  logical  results ;  and  out  of  the  an- 
cient custos  urbis,  by  a  circuitous  derivation,  came  the 
Roman  praetor  and  the  modern  judge.  Equal  rights  and 
privileges,  personal  freedom  and  the  cardinal  principles 
of  democracy  were  also  inherited  from  the  gentes.  When 
property  had  become  created  in  masses,  and  its  influence 
and  power  began  to  be  felt  in  society,  slavery  came  in ; 
an  institution  violative  of  all  these  principles,  but  sus- 
tained by  the  selfish  and  delusive  consideration  that  the 
person  made  a  slave  was  a  stranger  in  blood  and  a  captive 
enemy.  With  property  also  came  in  gradually  the  princi- 
ple of  aristocracy,  striving  for  the  creation  of  privileged 
classes.  The  element  of  property,  which  has  controlled 
society  to  a  great  extent  during  the  comparatively  short 
period  of  civilization,  has  given  mankind  despotism,  im- 
perialism, monarchy,  privileged  classes,  and  finally  rep- 
resentative democracy.  It  has  also  made  the  career  of 
the  civilized  nations  essentially  a  property-making  career. 
But  when  the  intelligence  of  mankind  rises  to  the  height 
of  the  great  question  of  the  abstract  rights  of  property, 
— including  the  relations  of  property  tr>  the  state,  as  well 
as  the  rights  of  persons  to  property, — a  modification  of 
the  present  order  of  things  mav  be  expected.  The  nature 
of  the  coming  changes  it  may  be  impossible  to  conceive ; 
but  it  seems  probable  that  democracy,  once  universal  in 
a  rudimentary  form  and  reoiessed  in  many  civilized 
states,  is  destined  to  become  again  universal  and  supreme. 
An  American,  educated  in  the  principles  of  democracy, 


862  ANCIENT  SOCIETT 

and  profoundly  impressed  with  the  dignity  and  grandeur 
of  those  great  conceptions  which  recognize  the  Hberty, 
equahty  and  fraternity  of  mankind,  may  give  free 
expression  to  a  preference  for  self-government  and  free 
institutions.  At  the  same  time  the  equal  right  of  every 
other  person  must  be  recognized  to  accept  and  approve 
any  form  of  government,  whether  imperial  or  monarch- 
ical, that  satisfies  his  preferences. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

CHANGE  OF  DESCENT  FROM   THE  FEMALE  TO  THE 
MALE  LINE 

An  important  question  remains  to  be  considered, 
namely :  whether  ?.ny  evidence  exists  that  descent  was 
anciently  in  the  female  line  in  the  Grecian  and  Latin 
gentes.  Theoretically,  this  must  have  been  the  fact  at 
some  anterior  period  among  their  remote  ancestors ;  but 
we  are  not  compelled  to  rest  the  question  upon  theory 
alone.  Since  a  change  to  the  male  line  involved  a  nearly 
total  alteration  of  the  membership  in  a  gens,  a  method 
by  which  it  might  have  been  accomplished  should  be 
pointed  out.  More  than  this,  it  should  be  shown,  if 
possible,  that  an  adequate  motive  requiring  the  change 
was  certain  to  arise,  with  the  progress  of  society  out  of 
the  condition  in  which  this  form  of  descent  originated. 
And  lastly,  the  existing  evidence  of  ancient  descent  in 
the  female  line  among  them  should  be  presented. 

A  gens  in  the  archaic  period,  as  we  have  seen,  consisted 
of  a  supposed  female  ancestor  and  her  children  together 
with  the  children  of  her  daughters,  and  of  her  female 
descendants  through  females  in  perpetuity.  The  children 
of  her  sons,  and  of  her  male  descendants,  through  males, 
were  excluded.  On  the  other  hand,  with  descent  in  the 
male  line,  a  gens  consisted  of  a  supposed  male  ancestor  and 
his  children,  together  with  the  children  of  his  sons  and  of 
his  male  descendants  through  males  in  perpetuity.  The 
children  of  his  daughters,  and  of  his  female  descendants 
through  females,  were  excluded.  Those  excluded  in 
the  first  case  would  be  members  of  the  gens  in  the  sec 

8!>8 


354  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

ond  case,  and  z'ice  versa.  The  question  then  arises,  how 
could  descent  be  changed  from  the  female  line  to  the  male 
without  the  destruction  of  the  gens  ? 

The  method  was  simple  and  natural,  provided  the 
motive  to  make  the  change  was  general,  urgent  and  com- 
manding. When  done  at  a  given  time,  and  by  precon- 
certed determination,  it  was  only  necessary  to  agree  that 
all  the  present  members  of  the  gens  should  remain 
members,  but  that  in  future  all  children,  whose  fathers 
belonged  to  the  gens,  should  alone  remain  in  it  and  bear 
the  gentile  name,  while  the  children  of  its  female  mem- 
bers should  be  excluded.  This  would  not  break  or  change 
the  kinship  or  relations  of  the  existing  gentiles ;  but 
thereafter  it  would  retain  in  the  gens  the  children  it 
before  excluded  and  exclude  those  it  before  retained. 
Although  it  may  seem  a  hard  problem  to  solve,  the  press- 
ure of  an  adequate  motive  would  render  it  easy,  and  the 
lapse  of  a  few  generations  would  make  it  complete.  As  a 
practical  question,  it  has  been  changed  from  the  female 
line  to  the  male  among  the  American  aborigines  in  a  num- 
ber of  instances.  Thus,  among  the  Ojibwas  descent  is  now 
in  the  male  line,  while  among  their  congeners,  the  Dela- 
wares.  and  Mohegans,  it  is  still  in  the  female  line.  Origi- 
nally, without  a  doubt,  descent  was  in  the  female  line  in 
the  entire  Algonkin  stock. 

Since  descent  in  the  female  line  is  archaic,  and  more  in 
accordance  with  the  early  condition  of  ancient  society 
than  descent  in  the  male  line,  there  is  a  presumption  in 
favor  of  its  ancient  prevalence  in  the  Grecian  and  Latin 
gentes.  Moreover,  when  the  archaic  form  of  any  trans- 
mitted organization  has  been  discovered  and  verified,  it 
is  impossible  to  conceive  of  its  origination  in  the  later 
more  advanced  form. 

Assuming  a  change  of  descent  among  them  from  the 
female  line  to  the  male,  it  must  have  occurred  very  re- 
motely from  the  historical  period.  Their  history  in  the 
Middle  status  of  barbarism  is  entirely  lost,  except  it  has 
been  in  some  measure  preserved  in  their  arts,  institutions 
and  inventions,  and  in  improvements  in  language.  The 
Upper  Status  has  the  superadded  light  of  tradition  and 


CHANGE  OF  DESCENT  355 

of  the  Homeric  poems  to  acquaint  us  with  its  experience 
and  the  measure  of  progress  then  made.  But  judging 
from  the  condition  in  which  their  traditions  place  them, 
it  seems  probable  that  descent,  in  the  female  litie  had  not 
entirely  disappeared,  at  least  among  the  Pelasgian  and 
Grecian  tribes,  when  they  entered  the  Upper  Status  of 
barbarism. 

When  descent  was  in  the  female  line  in  the  Grecian 
and  Latin  gentes,  the  gens  possessed  the  following 
among  other  characteristics :  i.  Marriage  in  the  gens 
■was  prohibited  ;  thus  placing  children  in  a  different  gens 
from  that  of  their  reputed  father.  2.  Property  and  the 
office  of  chief  were  hereditary  in  the  gens ;  thus  exclud- 
ing children  from  inheriting  the  property  or  succeeding 
to  the  office  of  their  reputed  father.  This  state  of  things 
would  continue  until  a  motive  arose  sufficiently  general 
and  commanding  to  establish  the  injustice  of  tl.is  exclu- 
sion in  the  face  of  their  changed  condition. 

The  natural  remedy  was  a  change  of  descent  from  the 
female  line  to  the  male.  All  that  was  needed  to  effect  the 
change  was  an  adequate  motive.  After  domestic  animals 
began  to  be  reared  in  flocks  and  herds,  becoming  thereby 
a  source  of  subsistence  as  well  as  objects  of  individual 
propertv,  and  after  tillage  had  led  to  the  ownership  of 
houses  and  lands  in  severalty,  an  antagonism  would  be 
certain  to  arise  against  the  prevailing  form  of  gentile 
inheritance,  because  it  excluded  the  owner's  children, 
whose  paternity  was  becoming  more  assured,  and  gave 
his  property  to  his  gentile  kindred.  A  contest  for  a  new 
rule  of  inheritance,  shared  in  by  fathers  and  their  chil- 
dren, would  furnish  a  motive  sufficiently  powerful  to 
effect  the  change.  \\'ith  property  accumulating  in 
masses  and  assuming  permanent  forms,  and  with  an 
increased  proportion  of  it  held  by  individual  ownership. 
descent  in  the  female  line  was  certain  of  overthrow,  and 
the  substitution  of  the  male  line  equally  assured.  Such 
a  change  would  leave  the  inheritance  in  the  gens  as 
before,  but  it  would  place  children  in  the  gens  of  their 
father,  and  at  the  head  of  the  agnatic  kindred.  For  a 
time,  in  all  probability,  they  would  share  in  the  distribu- 


S66  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

tion  of  the  estate  with  the  remaining  agnates ;  but  an 
extension  of  the  principle  by  which  the  agnates  cut  oflf 
the  remaining  gentiles,  would  in  time  result  in  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  agnates  beyond  the  children  and  an  exclusive 
inheritance  in  the  children.  Farther  than  this,  the  son 
would  now  be  brought  in  the  line  of  succession  to  the 
office  of  his  father. 

Such  had  the  law  of  inheritance  become  in  the  Athen- 
ian gens  in  the  time  of  Solon  or  shortly  after ;  when  the 
property  passed  to  the  sons  equally,  subject  to  the  obliga- 
tion of  maintaining  the  daughters,  and  of  apportioning 
them  in  marriage;  and  in  default  of  sons,  to  the  daugh- 
ters equally.  If  there  were  no  children,  then  the  inherit- 
ance passed  to  the  agnatic  kindred,  and  in  default  of  the 
latter,  to  the  gentiles.  The  Roman  law  of  the  Twelve 
Tables  was  substantially  the  same. 

It  seems  probable  further,  that  when  descent  was 
changed  to  the  male,  or  still  earlier,  animal  names  for  the 
gentes  were  laid  aside  and  personal  names  substituted  in 
their  place.  The  individuality  of  persons  would  assert 
itself  more  and  more  with  the  progress  of  society,  and 
with  the  increase  and  individual  ownership  of  property, 
leading  to  the  naming  of  the  gens  after  some  ancestral 
hero.  Although  new  gentes  were  being  formed  from 
time  to  time  by  the  process  of  segmentation,  and  others 
were  dying  out,  the  lineage  of  a  gens  reached  back 
through  hundreds  not  to  say  thousands  of  years.  After 
the  supposed  substitution,  the  eponymous  ancestor  would 
have  been  a  shifting  person,  at  long  intervals  of  time, 
some  later  person  distinguished  in  the  history  of  the  gens 
being  put  in  his  place,  when  the  knowledge  of  the  former 
person  became  obscured,  and  faded  from  view  in  the 
misty  past.  That  the  more  celebrated  Grecian  gentes 
made  the  change  of  names,  and  made  it  gracefully,  is 
shown  by  the  fact,  that  they  retained  the  name  of  the 
mother  of  their  gentile  father,  and  ascribed  his  birth  to 
her  embracement  by  some  particular  god.  Thus  Eumol- 
pus,  the  eponymous  ancestor  of  the  Attic  Eumolpidse,  was 
the  reputed  son  of  Neptune  and  Chione;  but  even  the 
Grecian  gens  was  older  than  the  conception  of  Neptune. 


CHANGE  OF  DESCENT  i5t 

Recurring  now  to  the  main  question,  the  absence  of 
direct  proof  of  ancient  descent  in  the  female  Hne  in  the 
Grecian  and  Latin  gentes  would  not  silence  the  presump* 
tion  in  its  favor;  but  it  so  happens  that  this  form  of 
descent  remained  in  some  tribes  nearly  related  to  the 
Greeks  with  traces  of  it  in  a  number  of  Grecian  tribes. 

The  inquisitive  and  observing  Herodotus  found  one 
nation,  the  Lycians,  Pelasgian  in  lineage,  but  Grecian  in 
affiliation,  among  whom  in  his  time  (440  B.  C.),  descent 
was  in  the  female  line.  After  remarking  that  the  Lycians 
were  sprung  from  Crete,  and  stating  some  particulars  of 
their  migration  to  Lycia  under  Sarpedon,  he  proceeds  as 
follows :  "Their  customs  are  partly  Cretan  and  partly 
Carian.  They  have,  however,  one  singular  custom  in 
which  they  differ  from  every  other  nation  in  the  world. 
Ask  a  Ly'cian  who  he  is.  and  he  answers  by  giving  his 
own  name,  that  of  his  mother,  and  so  on  in  the  female 
line.  Moreover,  if  a  free  woman  marry  a  man  who  is  a 
slave,  their  children  are  free  citizens ;  but  if  a  free  man 
marry  a  foreign  woman,  or  cohabit  with  a  concubine 
even  though  he  be  the  first  person  in  the  state,  the  chil- 
dren forfeit  all  the  rights  of  citizenship."  ^  It  follows 
necessarily  from  this  circumstantial  statement  that  the 
Lycians  were  organized  in  gentes,  with  a  prohibition 
against  intermarriage  in  the  gens,  and  that  the  children 
belonged  to  the  gens  of  their  mother.  It  presents  a  clear 
exemplification  of  a  gens  in  the  archaic  form,  with  con- 
firmatory tests  of  the  consequences  of  a  marriage  of  a 
Lycian  man  with  a  foreign  woman,  and  of  a  Lycian 
woman  with  a  slave.  ^  The  aborigines  of  Crete  were 
Pelasgian,  Hellenic  and  Semitic  tribes,  living  locally 
apart."  Minos,  the  brother  of  Sarpedon,  is  usually 
regarded  as  the  head  of  the  Pelasgians  in  Crete ;  but  the 
Lycians  were  already  Hellenized  in  the  time  of  Herod- 
otus and   quite   conspicuous   among   the   Asiatic   Greeks 

1  Rawlin-son's  "Herodotus,"  1.   171?. 

2  If  a  Seneca-Iroquois  nian  marries  a  foreign  woman,  their 
children  are  alii-ns;  liut  if  a  Spnoca-lroquoi.s  woman  marries  an 
alit-n,  or  an  Onondapa.  thpir  chlldrrn  are  Iroquois  of  the  Seneca 
tribe;  and  of  the  gens  and  phratry  of  their  mother.  The  woman 
confers  lier  nationality  and  her  gens  upon  her  children,  whoever 
may  be  their  father. 


868 


ANCIENT  SOCIETt' 


for  their  advancement.  The  insulation  of  their  ancestors 
upon  the  island  of  Crete,  prior  to  their  migration  in  the 
legendary  period  to  Lycia,  may  afford  an  explanation  of 
their  retention  of  descent  in  the  female  line  to  this  late 
period. 

Among  the  Etruscans  also  the  same  rule  of  descent 
prevailed.  "It  is  singular  enough,"  observes  Cramer, 
'•that  two  customs  peculiar  to  the  Etruscans,  as  we  dis- 
cover from  their  monuments,  should  have  been  noticed 
by  Herodotus  as  characteristic  of  the  Lycians  and  Cauni- 
ans  of  Asia  Minor.  The  first  is,  that  the  Etruscans  invari- 
ably describe  their  parentage  and  family  with  reference 
to  the  mother,  and  not  the  father.  The  other,  that  they 
admitted  their  wives  to  their  feasts  and  banquets."  ^ 

Curtius  comments  on  Lycian,  Etruscan  and  Cretan 
descent  in  the  female  line  in  the  following  language :  "It 
would  be  an  error  to  understand  the  usage  in  question  as 
an  homage  to  the  female  sex.  It  is  rather  rooted  in  prim- 
itive conditions  of  society,  in  which  monogamy  was  not 
yet  established  with  sufficient  certainty  to  enable  descent 
upon  the  father's  side  to  be  affirmed  with  assurance. 
Accordingly  the  usage  extends  far  beyond  the  territory 
commanded  by  the  Lycian  nationality.  It  occurs,  even  to 
this  day,  in  India ;  it  may  be  demonstrated  to  have  exist- 
ed among  the  ancient  Egyptians;  it  is  mentioned  by 
Sanchoniathon  (p.  i6,  Orcl'l),  where  the  reasons  for  its 
existence  are  stated  with  great  freedom ;  and  beyond  the 
confines  of  the  East  it  appears  among  the  Etruscans, 
among  the  Cretans,  who  were  so  closely  connected  with 
the  Lycians,  and  who  called  their  father-land  mother- 
land;  and  among  the  Athenians,  consult  Bachofen,  etc. 
Accordingly,  if  Herodotus  regards  the  usage  in  question 
as  thoroughly  peculiar  to  the  Lycians,  it  must  have  main- 
tained itself  longest  among  them  of  all  the  nations  related 
to  the  Greeks,  as  is  also  proved  by  the  Lycian  inscriptions. 
Hence  we  must  in  general  regard  the  employment  of  the 
maternal  name  for  a  designation  of  descent  as  the 
remains    of    an    imnerfect    condition    of    social    life  and 


"Description  of  Ancient  Italy,"  I.  153;  citing  "Lanzl,"  11,  J14. 


CHANGE  OF  DESCENT  359 

family  law,  which,  as  life  becomes  more  regulated,  was 
relinquished  in  favor  of  usages,  afterwards  universal  in 
Greece,  of  naming  children  after  the  father.  This 
diversity  of  usages,  which  is  extremely  important'  for  the 
history  of  ancient  civilization,  has  been  recently  discussed 
by  Bachofen  in,  his  address  above  named."  ^ 

In  a  work  of  vast  research,  Bachofen  has  collected  and 
discussed  the  evidence  of  female  authority  (mother- 
right)  and  of  female  rule  (gyneocracy)  among  the 
Lycians,  Cretans,  Athenians,  Lemnians,  Egyptians, 
Orchomenians,  Locrians,  Lesbians,  Alantineans,  and 
among  eastern  Asiatic  nations.  ^  The  condition  of  ancient 
society,  thus  brought  under  review,  requires  for  its  full 
explanation  the  existence  of  the  gens  in  its  archaic  form 
as  the  source  of  the  phenomena.  This  would  bring  the 
mother  and  her  children  into  the  same  gens,  and  in  the 
composition  of  the  communal  household,  on  the  basis  of 
gens,  would  give  the  gens  of  the  mothers  the  ascendency 
in  the  household.  The  family,  which  had  probably  at- 
tained the  syndyasmian  form,  was  still  environed  with  the 
remains  of  that  conjugal  system  which  belonged  to  a  still 
earlier  condition.  Such  a  family,  consisting  of  a  married 
pair  with  their  children,  would  naturally  have  sought 
shelter  with  kindred  families  in  a  communal  household, 
in  which  the  several  mothers  and  their  children  would  be 
of  the  same  gens,  and  the  reputed  fathers  of  these  chil- 
dren would  be  of  other  gentes.  Common  lands  and  joint 
tillage  would  lead  to  joint-tenement  houses  and  commu- 
nism in  living;  so  that  gyneocracy  seems  to  require  for 
its  creation,  descent  in  the  female  line.  Women  thus 
entrenched  in  large  households,  supplied  from  common 

1  "History  of  Greece,"  Scribner  &  Armstrong's  ed.,  Ward's 
Trans.,  I,  94,  note.  The  Etiocretes,  of  whom  Minos  was  the  hero, 
were  doubtless  Pelasgians.  They  occupied  the  east  end  of  the 
Island  of  Crete.  Sarpedon,  a  brother  of  Minos,  led  the  emi- 
grants to  Lycia  where  they  displaced  the  Solymi,  a  Semitic 
tribe  probably:  but  the  Lycians  had  become  Hellenlzed.  like 
many  other  Pelasgian  tribes,  before  the  time  of  Herodotus,  a 
circumstance  quite  material  in  consequence  of  the  derivation  of 
the  Grecian  and  Pelasgian  tribes  from  a  common  original  stock. 
In  the  time  of  Herodotus  the  Lycians  were  as  far  advanced  In 
the  arts  of  life  a.«  the  European  Greeks  (Curtius,  1,  93:  Grote, 
1.  224).  It  seems  probable  that  descent  in  the  female  line  was 
derived   from  their  Pelasgian  ancestors. 

a  "Das  Mutterrecht,'    Stuttgart.   1861. 


860  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

Stores,  in  which  their  own  gens  so  largely  predominated 
in  numbers,  would  produce  the  phenomena  of  mother 
right  and  gyneocracy,  which  Bachofen  has  detected  and 
traced  with  the  aid  of  fragments  of  history  and  of  tradi- 
tion. Elsewhere  I  have  referred  to  the  unfavorable 
influence  upon  the  position  of  women  which  was  produced 
by  a  change  of  descent  from  the  female  line  to  the  male, 
and  by  the  rise  of  the  monogamian  family,  which  dis- 
placed the  joint-tenement  house,  and  in  the  midst  of  a 
society  purely  gentile,  placed  the  wife  and  mother  in  a 
single  house  and  separated  her  from  her  gentile  kindred.  ^ 
Monogamy  was  not  probably  established  among  the 
Grecian  tribes  until  after  they  had  attained  the  Upper 
Status  of  barbarism ;  and  we  seem  to  arrive  at  chaos  in 
the  marriage  relation  within  this  period,  especially  in  the 
Athenian  tribes.  Concerning  the  latter,  Bachofen  remarks  : 
"For  before  the  time  of  Cecrops  the  children,  as  we  have 
seen,  had  only  a  mother,  no  father ;  they  were  of  one  line. 
Bound  to  no  man  exclusively,  the  woman  brought  only 
spurious  children  into  the  world.  Cecrops  first  made  an 
end  of  this  condition  of  things ;  led  the  lawless  union  of 
the  sexes  back  to  the  exclusiveness  of  marriage ;  gave  to 
the  children  a  father  and  mother,  and  thus  from  being 
of  one  line  (unilateres)  made  them  of  two  lines 
(bilateres)."^  What  is  here  described  as  the  lawless 
union  of  the  sexes  must  be  received  with  modifications. 
We  should  expect  at  that  comparatively  late  day  to  find 
the  syndyasmian  family,  but  attended  by  the  remains  of 
an  anterior  conjugal  system  which  sprang  from  mar- 
riages in  the  group.  The  punaluan  family,  which  the 
statement  fairly  implies,  must  have    disappeared    before 

I  Bachofen.  speaking  of  the  Cretan  city  of  Lyktos,  remarks 
that  "this  city  was  considered  a  Lacedaemonian  colony,  and  as 
also  related  to  the  Athenians.  It  was  in  both  cases  only  on  the 
mother's  side,  for  only  the  mothers  were  Spartans:  the  Athenian 
relationship,  however,  goes  back  to  those  Athenian  women 
whom  the  Pelasglan  Tyrrhenians  are  said  to  have  enticed  away 
from  the  Brauron  promontory."  —  "Das  Mutterrecht,"  ch.  13, 
p.   31. 

With  descent  in  the  male  line  the  lineage  of  the  women  w^ould 
have  remained  unnoticed;  but  with  descent  in  the  female  lln« 
the  colonists  would  have  given  their  pedigrees  through  female* 
only. 

a    "Daa  Mutterrecht."   ch.   38,  p.   7S. 


CHANGE  OF  DESCENT  C61 

they  reached  the  ethnical  period  named.  This  subject 
will  be  considered  in  subsequent  chapters  in  connection 
with  the  growth  of  the  family. 

There  is  an  interesting  reference  by  Polybius  to  the 
hundred  families  of  the  Locrians  of  Italy.  "The  Locri- 
ans  themselves,"  he  remarks,  "have  assured  me  that  their 
own  traditions  are  more  conformable  to  the  account  of 
Aristotle  than  to  that  of  Timseus.  Of  this  they  mention 
the  following  proofs.  The  first  is,  that  all  nobility  of 
ancestrv  among  them  is  derived  from  women,  and  not 
from  men.  That  those,  for  example,  alone  are  noble,  who 
derive  their  origin  from  the  hundred  families.  That  these 
families  were  noble  among  the  Locrians  before  they 
migrated  ;  and  were  the  same,  indeed,  from  which  a  hun- 
dred virgins  were  taken  by  lot,  as  the  oracle  had  com- 
manded, and  were  sent  to  Troy."-^  It  is  at  least  a  reason- 
able supposition  that  the  rank  here  referred  to  was  con- 
nected with  the  office  of  chief  of  the  gens,  which  enno- 
bled the  particular  family  within  the  gens,  upon  one  of 
the  members  of  which  it  was  conferred.  If  this  supnosi- 
tion  is  tenable,  it  implies  descent  in  the  female  line  both  as 
to  persons  and  to  office.  The  office  of  chief  w^as  hereditary 
in  the  gens,  and  elective  among  its  male  members  in 
archaic  times ;  and  with  descent  in  the  female  line,  it 
would  pass  from  brother  to  brother,  and  from  uncle  to 
nephew^  But  the  office  in  each  case  passed  through 
females,  the  eligibility  of  the  person  depending  upon  the 
gens  of  his  mother,  who  gave  him  his  connection  with 
the  gens,  and  with  the  deceased  chief  wdiose  place  was 
to  be  filled.  Wherever  office  or  rank  runs  through  fe- 
males it  requires  descent  in  the  female  line  for  its  ex- 
planation. 

Evidence  of  ancient  descent  in  the  female  line  among 
the  Grecian  tribes  is  found  in  particular  marriages  which 
occurred  in  the  traditionary  period.  Thus  Salmoneus  and 
Kretheus  were  own  brothers,  the  sons  of  /Eolus.  The 
former  gave  his  daughter  Tyro  in  marriage  to  her  uncle. 


I    "Polybius,"    xU,    extfoi    the    second,    Hampton's    Trans.,    lU, 
242. 


^i  ANCIENT  SOCIET"? 

With  descent  in  the  male  Hne,  Kretheus  and  Tyro  would 
have  been  of  the  same  gens,  and  could  not  have  married 
for  that  reason ;  but  with  descent  in  the  female  line,  they 
would  have  been  of  different  gentes,  and  therefore  not  of 
gentile  kin.  Their  marriage  in  that  case  would  not  have 
violated  strict  gentile  usages.  It  is  immaterial  that  the 
persons  named  are  mythical,  because  the  legend  would 
apply  gentile  usages  correctly.  This  marriage  is 
explainable  on  the  hypothesis  of  descent  in  the  female 
line,  which  in  turn  raises  a  presumption  of  its  existence 
at  the  time,  or  as  justified  by  their  ancient  usages  which 
had  not  wholly  died  out. 

The  same  fact  is  revealed  by  marriages  within  the 
historical  period,  when  an  ancient  practice  seems  to*  have 
survived  the  change  of  descent  to  the  male  line,  even 
though  it  violated  the  gentile  obligations  of  the  parties. 
After  the  time  of  Solon  a  brother  might  marry  his  half- 
sister,  provided  they  were  born  of  dift"erent  mothers,  but 
not  conversely.  With  descent  in  the  female  line,  they 
would  be  of  different  gentes,  and,  therefore,  not  of  gentile 
kin.  Their  marriage  would  interfere  with  no  gentile 
obligation.  But  with  descent  in  the  male  line,  which  was 
the  fact  when  the  cases  about  to  be  cited  occurred,  they 
would  be  of  the  same  gens,  and  consequently  under 
prohibition.  Cimon  married  his  half-sister,  Elpinice,  their 
father  being  the  same,  but  their  mothers  different.  In  the 
Enbulides  of  Demosthenes  we  iind  a  similar  case.  "My 
grandfather,"  says  Euxithius,  "married  his  sister,  she  not 
being  his  sister  by  the  same  mother."  *  Such  marriages, 
against  which  a  strong  prejudice  had  arisen  among  the 
Athenians  as  early  as  the  time  of  Solon,  are  explainable 
as  a  survival  of  an  ancient  custom  with  respect  to  mar- 
riage, which  prevailed  when  descent  was  in  the  female 
Hne,  and  which  had  not  been  entirely  eradicated  in  the 
time  of  Demosthenes. 

Descent  in  the  female  line  presupposes  the  gens  to 
distinguish  the  lineage.  With  our  present  knowledge  of 
the  ancient  and  modern  prevalence  of  the  gentile  organi- 


I    "Demosthenes  contra  Eubulldes,"   20. 


CHANGE  OF  DESCENT  368 

zation  upon  five  continents,  including  the  Australian,  and 
of  the  archaic  constitution  of  the  gens,  traces  of  descent 
in  the  female  line  might  be  expected  to  exist  in  traditions, 
if  not  in  usages  coming  down  to  historical  times.  It  is 
not  supposable,  therefore,  that  the  Lycians,  the  Cretans, 
the  Athenians  and  the  Locrians,  if  the  evidence  is  suffi- 
cient to  include  the  last  two,  invented  a  usage  so  remark- 
able as  descent  in  the  female  line.  The  hypothesis  that 
it  was  the  ancient  law  of  the  Latin,  Grecian,  and  other 
Graeco-Italian  gentes  aflfords  a  more  rational  as  well  as 
satisfactory  explanation  of  the  facts.  The  influence  of 
property  and  the  desire  to  transmit  it  to  children  fur- 
nished adequate  motives  for  the  change  to  the  male  line. 
It  may  be  inferred  that  marrying  out  of  the  gens  was 
the  rule  among  the  Athenians,  before  as  w^ell  as  after  the 
time  of  Solon,  from  the  custom  of  registering  the  wife, 
upon  her  marriage,  in  the  phratry  of  her  husband,  and 
the  children,  daughters  as  well  as  sons,  in  the  gens  and 
phratry  of  their  father.*  The  fundamental  principle  on 
which  the  gens  was  founded  was  the  prohibition  of  inter 
marriage  among  its  members  as  consanguinei.  In  each 
gens  the  number  of  members  was  not  large.  Assuming 
sixty  thousand  as  the  number  of  registered  Athenians  in 
the  time  of  Solon,  and  dividing  them  equally  among  the 
three  hundred  and  sixty  Attic  gentes,  it  would  give  but 
one  hundred  and  sixty  persons  to  each  gens.  The  gens 
was  a  great  family  of  kindred  persons,  with  common 
religious  rites,  a  common  burial  place,  and,  in  general, 
common  lands.  From  the  theory  of  its  constitution,  inter- 
marriage would  be  disallowed.  With  the  change  of 
descent  to  the  male  line,  with  the  rise  of  monogamy  and 
an  exclusive  inheritance  in  the  children,  and  with  the 
appearance  of  heiresses,  the  way  was  being  gradually 
prepared  for  free  marriage  regardless  of  gens,  but  with 
a  prohibition  limited  to  certain  degrees  of  near  consan- 
guinity.    Marriages  in  the  human  family  began  in  the 

I  Demosth..  "Eubul.."  24:  Tn  his  time  the  re.^lstratlon  was  In 
the  Deme;  but  it  would  show  who  were  tlie  phrators.  blood  rel- 
aties,  feUow  demots  and  g-ennetes  of  tlie  person  registered;  as 
Euxitheus  says;  see  also  Hermann's  "Pollt.  Antlq.  of  Greece," 
par.    100. 


364  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

group,  all  the  males  and  females  of  which,  excluding  the 
children,  were  joint  husbands  and  wives;  but  the  hus- 
bands and  wives  were  of  different  gentes ;  and  it  ended 
in  marriages  between  single  pairs,  with  an  exclusive 
cohabitation.  In  subsequent  chapters  an  attempt  will  be 
made  to  trace  the  several  forms  of  marriage  and  of  the 
family  from  the  first  stage  to  the  last. 

A  system  of  consanguinity  came  in  with  the  gens,  dis- 
tinguished as  the  Turanian  in  Asia,  and  as  the  Ganow- 
anian  in  America,  which  extended  the  prohibition  of  in- 
termarriage as  far  as  the  relationship  of  brother  and  sister 
extended  among  collaterals.  This  system  still  prevails 
among  the  American  aborigines,  in  portions  of  Asia  and 
Africa,  and  in  Australia.  It  unquestionably  prevailed 
among  the  Grecian  and  Latin  tribes  in  the  same  anterior 
period,  and  traces  of  it  remained  down  to  the  traditionary 
period.  One  feature  of  the  Turanian  system  may  be 
restated  as  follows :  the  children  of  brothers  are  them- 
selves brothers  and  sisters,  and  as  such  could  not  inter- 
marry ;  the  children  of  sisters  stood  in  the  same  relation- 
ship, and  were  under  the  same  prohibition.  It  may  serve 
to  explain  the  celebrated  legend  of  the  Danaidae,  one  ver- 
sion of  which  furnished  to  Aeschylus  his  subject  for  the 
tragedy  of  the  Suppliants.  The  reader  will  remember 
that  Danaus  and  ^gyptus  were  brothers,  and  descend- 
ants of  Argive  lo.  The  former  by  different  wives  had 
fifty  daughters,  arid  the  latter  by  different  wives  had  fifty 
sons ;  and  in  due  time  the  sons  of  yEgyptus  sought  the 
daughters  of  Danaus  in  marriage.  Under  the  system  of 
consanguinity  appertaining  to  the  gens  in  its  archaic  form, 
and  which  remained  until  superseded  by  the  system  intro- 
duced by  monogamy,  they  were  brothers  and  sisters,  and 
for  that  reason  could  not  marry.  If  descent  at  tlie  time 
was  in  the  male  line,  the  children  of  Danaus  and  ^gyptus 
would  have  been  of  the  same  gens,  which  would  have  in- 
terposed an  additional  objection  to  their  marriage,  and  of 
equal  weight.  Nevertheless  the  sons  of  yEgyptus  sought 
to  overstep  these  barriers  and  enforce  wedlock  upon  the 
Danaidae;  whilst  the  latter,  crossing  the  sea,  fled  from 
Egypt  to  Argos  to  escape  what  they  pronounced  an  un- 


CHANGE  OF  DESCENT  365 

lawful  and  incestuous  union.  In  the  Prometheus  of  the 
same  author,  this  event  is  foretold  to  lo  by  Prometheus, 
namely :  that  in  the  fifth  generation  from  her  future  son 
Epaphus,  a  band  of  fifty  virgins  should  come  to  Argos, 
not  voluntarily,  but  fleeing  from  incestuous  wedlock  with 
the  sons  of  ^gyptus.  ^  Their  flight  with  abhorrence  from 
the  proposed  nuptials  finds  its  explanation  in  the  ancient 
system  of  consanguinity,  independently  of  gentile  law. 
Apart  from  this  explanation  the  event  has  no  significance, 
and  their  aversion  to  the  marriages  would  have  been  mere 
prudery. 

The  tragedy  of  the  SHpplia)its  is  founded  upon  the 
incident  of  their  flight  over  the  sea  to  Argos,  to  claim 
the  protection  of  their  Argive  kindred  against  the  pro- 
posed violence  of  the  sons  of  ^gyptus,  who  pursued 
them.  At  Argos  the  Danaidas  declare  that  they  did  not 
depart  fjom  Egypt  under  the  sentence  of  banishment,  but 
fled  from  men  of  common  descent  with  themselves,  scorn- 
ing unholy  marriage  with  the  sons  of  yEgyptus.  ^  Their 
reluctance  is  placed  exclusively  upon  the  fact  of  kin,  thus 
implying  an  existing  prohibition  against  such  marriages, 
which  they  had  been  trained  to  respect.  After  hearing 
the  case  of  the  Suppliants,  the  Argives  in  council  resolved 
to  afford  them  protection,  which  of  itself  implies  the  ex- 
istence of  the  prohibition  of  the  marriages  and  the  valid- 
ity of  their  objection.  At  the  time  this  tragedy  was  pro- 
duced, Athenian  law  permitted  and  even  required  mar- 
riage between  the  children  of  brothers  in  the  case  of  heir- 
esses and  female  orphans,  although  the  rule  seems  to  have 
been  confined  to  these  exceptional  cases ;  such  marriages, 
therefore,  would  not  seem  to  the  Athenians  either  incest- 
uous or  unlawful ;  but  this  tradition  of  the  Danaidae  had 
come  down  from  a  remote  antiquity,  and  its  whole  sig- 
nificance depended  upon  the  force  of  the  custom  for- 
bidding the  nuptials.  The  turning-point  of  the  tradition 
and  its  incidents  was  their  inveterate  repugnance  to  the 
proposed  marriages  as  forbidden  by  law  and  custom.    No 


1  "Prometheus,"   853. 

2  Aeschylus,   "Supp.,"  9. 


366  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

Other  reason  is  assigned,  and  no  other  is  needed.  At  thf 
same  time  their  conduct  is  intelligible  on  the  assumption 
that  such  marriages  were  as  unpermissible  then,  as  mar- 
riage between  a  brother  and  sister  would  be  at  the  present 
time.  The  attempt  of  the  sons  of  ^gyptus  to  break 
through  the  barrier  interposed  by  the  Turanian  system 
of  consanguinity  may  mark  the  time  when  this  system 
was  beginning  to  give  way,  and  the  present  system,  which 
came  in  with  monogamy,  was  beginning  to  assert  itself, 
and  which  was  destined  to  set  aside  gentile  usages  and 
Turanian  consanguinity  by  the  substitution  of  fixed 
degrees  as  the  limits  of  prohibition. 

Upon  the  evidence  adduced  it  seems  probable  that 
among  the  Pelasgian,  Hellenic  and  Italian  tribes  descent 
was  originally  in  the  female  line,  from  which,  under  the 
influence  of  property  and  inheritance,  it  was  changed  to 
the  male  line.  Whether  or  not  these  tribes  anciently  pos- 
sessed the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity,  the  reader 
will  be  better  able  to  judge  after  that  system  has  been 
presented,  with  the  evidence  of  its  wide  prevalence  in 
ancient  society. 

The  length  of  the  traditionary  period  of  these  tribes 
is  of  course  unknown  in  the  years  of  its  duration,  but  it 
must  be  measured  by  thousands  of  years.  It  probably 
reached  back  of  the  invention  of  the  process  of  smelting 
iron  ore,  and  if  so,  passed  through  the  Later  Period  of 
barbarism  and  entered  the  Middle  Period.  Their  condi- 
tion of  advancement  in  the  Middle  Period  must  have  at 
least  equaled  that  of  the  Aztecs,  Mayas  and  Peruvians, 
who  were  found  in  the  status  of  the  Middle  Period;  and 
their  condition  in  the  Later  Period  must  have  surpassed 
immensely  that  of  the  Indian  tribes  named.  The  vast 
and  varied  experience  of  these  European  tribes  in  the 
two  great  ethnical  periods  named,  during  which  they 
achieved  the  remaining  elements  of  civilization,  is  entire- 
ly lost,  excepting  as  it  is  imperfectly  disclosed  in  their 
traditions,  and  more  fully  by  their  arts  of  life,  their  cus- 
toms, language  and  institutions,  as  revealed  to  us  by 
the  poems  of  Homer.  Empires  and  kingdoms  were  nec- 
essarily unknown  in  these  periods;  but  tribes  and  incon- 


CHANGE  OF  DESCENT  367 

siderable  nations,  city  and  village  life,  the  growth  and 
development  of  the  arts  of  life,  and  physical,  mental  and 
moral  improvement,  were  among  the  particulars  of  that 
progress.  The  loss  of  the  events  of  these  great  periods 
to  human  knowledge  was  much  greater  than  can  easily 
be  imagined. 


CHAPTER  XV 

GENTES  IN   OTHER  TRIBES  OF  THE  HUMAN    FAMILY 

Having  considered  the  organization  into  gentes,  phra- 
tries  and  tribes  in  their  archaic  as  well  as  later  form,  it 
remains  to  trace  the  extent  of  its  prevalence  in  the  human 
family,  and  particularly  with  respect  to  the  gens,  the  basis 
of  the  system. 

The  Celtic  branch  of  the  Aryan  family  retained,  in  the 
Scottish  clan  and  Irish  sept,  the  organization  into  gentes 
to  a  later  period  of  time  than  any  other  branch  of  the 
family,  unless  the  Aryans  of  India  are  an  exception.  The 
Scottish  clan  in  particular  was  existing  in  remarkable 
vitality  in  the  Highlands  of  Scotland  in  the  middle  of  the 
last  century.  It  was  an  excellent  type  of  the  gens  in 
organization  and  in  spirit,  and  an  extraordinary  illustra- 
tion of  the  power  of  the  gentile  life  over  its  members.  The 
illustrious  author  of  Waverley  has  perpetuated  a  number 
of  striking  characters  developed  under  clan  life,  and 
stamped  with  its  peculiarities.  Evan  Dhu,  Torquil,  Rob 
Roy  and  many  others  rise  before  the  mind  as  illustrations 
of  the  influence  of  the  gens  in  molding  the  character  of 
individuals.  If  Sir  Walter  exaggerated  these  characters  in 
some  respects  to  suit  the  emergencies  of  a  tale,  they  had 
a  real  foundation.  The  same  clans,  a  few  centuries  ear- 
lier, when  clan  life  was  stronger  and  external  influences 
were  weaker,  would  probably  have  verified  the  pictures. 
We  find  in  their  feuds  and  blood  revenge,  in  their  locali- 
zation by  gentes,  in  their  use  of  lands  in  common,  in  the 
fidelity  of  the  clansman  to  his  chief  and  of  the  members 
of  the  clan  to  each  other,  the  usual  and  persistent  features 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY        ggg 

of  gentile  society.  As  portrayed  by  Scott,  it  was  a  more 
intense  and  chivalrous  gentile  life  than  we  are  able  to 
find  in  the  gentes  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  or,  at  the 
other  extreme,  in  those  of  the  American  aborigines. 
Whether  the  phratric  organization  existed  among  them 
does  not  appear ;  but  at  some  anterior  period  both  the 
phratry  and  the  tribe  doubtless  did  exist.  It  is  well 
known  that  the  British  government  were  compelled  to 
break  up  the  Highland  clans,  as  organizations,  in  order 
to  bring  the  people  under  the  authority  of  law  and  the 
usages  of  political  society.  Descent  was  in  the  male  line, 
the  children  of  the  males  remaining  members  of  the  clan, 
while  the  children  of  its  female  members  belonged  to  the 
clans  of  their  respective  fathers. 

We  shall  pass  over  the  Irish  sept,  the  phis  or  phrara  of 
the  Albanians,  which  embody  the  remains  of  a  prior 
gentile  organization,  and  the  traces  of  a  similar  organi- 
zation in  Dalmatia  and  Croatia;  and  also  the  Sanskrit 
ganas,  the  existence  of  which  term  in  the  language  im- 
plies that  this  branch  of  the  Aryan  family  formerly  pos- 
sessed the  same  institution.  The  communities  of  Villeins 
on  French  estates  in  former  times,  noticed  by  Sir  Henry 
Maine  in  his  recent  work,  may  prove  to  be,  as  he  inti- 
mates, remains  of  ancient  Celtic  gentes.  "Now  that  the 
explanation  has  once  been  given,"  he  remarks,  '^there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  these  associations  were  not  really  volun- 
tary partnerships,  but  groups  of  kinsmen :  not,  however, 
so  often  organized  on  the  ordinary  type  of  the  Village- 
Community  as  on  that  of  the  House-Community,  which 
has  recently  been  examined  in  Dalmatia  and  Croatia. 
Each  of  them  was  what  the  Hindus  call  a  Joint-Undi- 
vided family,  a  collection  of  assumed  descendants  from 
a  common  ancestor,  preserving  a  common  hearth  and 
common  meals  during  several  generations.'" 

A  brief  reference  should  be  made  to  the  question 
whether  any  traces  of  the  gentile  organization  remained 
among  the  German  tribes  when  they  first  came  under 
historical  notice.     That  they  inherited    this    institution, 

I    "Early  History  of  Institutions,"  Holt's  cd.,  p.  7. 


170  ANCIENT   SOvJIETY 

Avith  other  Aryan  tribes,  from  the  common  ancestors  of 
the  Aryan  family,  is  probable.  When  first  known  to  the 
Romans,  they  were  in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism. 
They  could  scarcely  have  developed  the  idea  of  govern- 
ment further  than  the  Grecian  and  Latin  tribes,  who  were 
in  advance  of  them,  when  each  respectively  became 
known.  While  the  Germans  may  have  acquired  an  imper- 
fect conception  of  a  state,  founded  upon  territory  and 
upon  property,  it  is  not  probable  that  they  had  any  knowl- 
edge of  the  second  great  plan  of  government  which  the 
Athenians  were  first  among  Aryan  tribes  to  establish. 
The  condition  and  mode  of  life  of  the  German  tribes,  as 
described  by  Caesar  and  Tacitus,  tend  to  the  conclusion 
that  their  several  societies  were  held  together  through 
personal  relations,  and  with  but  slight  reference  to  ter- 
ritory ;  and  that  their  government  was  through  these 
relations.  Civil  chiefs  and  military  commanders  acquired 
and  held  office  through  the  elective  principle,  and  consti- 
tuted the  council  which  was  the  chief  instrument  of  gov- 
ernment. On  lesser  affairs,  Tacitus  remarks,  the  chiefs 
consult,  but  on  those  of  greater  importance  the  whole 
community.  While  the  final  decision  of  all  important 
questions  belonged  to  the  people,  they  were  first  maturely 
considered  by  the  chiefs.^  The  close  resemblance  of 
these  to  Grecian  and  Latin  usages  will  be  perceived.  The 
government  consisted  of  three  powers,  the  council  of 
chiefs,  the  assembly  of  the  people,  and  the  military  com- 
mander. 

Caesar  remarks  that  the  Germans  were  not  studious  of 
agriculture,  the  greater  part  of  their  food  consisting  of 
milk,  cheese  and  meat ;  nor  had  any  one  a  fixed  quantity 
of  land,  or  his  own  individual  boundaries,  but  the  mag- 
istrates and  chiefs  each  year  assigned  to  the  gentes  ^md 
kinsmen  who  had  united  in  one  body  (gentibus  cogna- 
tionibusquc  hominum  qui  una  coerint)  as  much  land,  and 
in  such  places  as  seemed  best,  compelling  them  the  next 
year  to  remove  to  another  place.*    To  give  effect  to  the 


I   "Germania,"   c.   li. 

a  "De  BeU.  GaU.,"  vl,  22. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY        37| 

expression  in  parenthesis,  it  must  be  supposed  that  he 
found  among  them  groups  of  persons,  larger  than  a 
family,  united  on  the  basis  of  kin,  to  whom,  as  groups  of 
persons,  lands  were  allotted.  It  excludes  individuals,  and 
even  the  family,  both  of  whom  were  merged  in  the  group 
thus  united  for  cultivation  and  subsistence.  It  seems 
probable,  from  the  form  of  the  statement,  that  the  Ger- 
man family  at  this  time  was  syndyasmian ;  and  that  sev- 
eral related  families  were  united  in  households  and  prac- 
ticed communism  in  living. 

Tacitus  refers  to  a  usage  of  the  German  tribes  in  the 
arrangement  of  their  forces  in  battle,  by  which  kinsmen 
were  placed  side  by  side.  It  would  have  no  significance, 
if  kinship  were  limited  to  near  consanguinei.  And  what 
is  an  especial  incitement  of  their  courage,  he  remarks, 
neither  chance  nor  a  fortuitous  gathering  of  the  forces 
make  up  the  squadron  of  horse,  or  the  infantry  wedge ; 
but  they  were  formed  according  to  families  and  kinships 
(familix  et  propinquitates)}  This  expression,  and  that 
previously  quoted  from  Csesar,  seem  to  indicate  the  re- 
mains at  least  of  a  prior  gentile  organization,  which  at 
this  time  was  giving  place  to  the  mark  or  local  district  as 
the  basis  of  a  still  imperfect  political  system. 

The  German  tribes,  for  the  purpose  of  military  levies, 
had  the  mark  (markgenossenschaft),  which  also  existed 
among  the  English  Saxons,  and  a  larger  group,  the  gau, 
to  which  Caesar  and  Tacitus  gave  the  name  of  pagus:^  It 
is  doubtful  whether  the  mark  and  the  gau  were  then 
strictly  geographical  districts,  standing  to  each  other  in 
the  relations  of  township  and  county,  each  circumscribed 
by  bounds,  with  the  people  in  each  politically  organized. 
It  seems  more  probable  that  the  gau  was  a  group  of 
settlements  associated  with  reference  to  military  levies. 
As  such,  the  mark  and  the  gau  were  the  germs  of  the 
future  township  and  county,  precisely  as  the  Athenian 


I  "'Germania,"  cap.  7.  The  line  of  battle,  this  author  remarka. 
Is  formed  by  wedges.  "Acies  per  cuneos  componitur."— "Qer.." 
c.  6.  Kohlrausch  observes  that  "the  confederates  of  one  mark 
or  hundred,  and  of  one  race  or  sept,  fought  united."— "History 
of  Germany."  Appleton's   ed.,   trans,   by  J.  D.   Haas,   p.   28. 

»  "De   Beil.   Gall.,"   iv.    1.    "Germania,"   cap.    6. 


872  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

naucrary  and  trittys  were  the  rudiments  of  the  Cleisthen- 
ean  deme  and  local  tribe.  These  organizations  seemed 
transitional  stages  between  a  gentile  and  a  political 
system,  the  grouping  of  the  people  still  resting  on  con- 
sanguinity/ 

We  naturally  turn  to  the  Asiatic  continent,  where  the 
types  of  mankind  are  the  most  numerous,  and  where, 
consequently,  the  period  of  human  occupation  has  been 
longest,  to  find  the  earliest  traces  of  the  gentile  organi- 
zation. But  here  the  transformations  of  society  have 
been  the  most  extended,  and  the  infiuence  of  tribes  and 
nations  upon  each  other  the  most  constant.  The  early 
development  of  Chinese  and  Indian  civilization  and  the 
overmastering  influence  of  modern  civilization  have 
wrought  such  changes  in  the  condition  of  Asiatic  stocks 
that  their  ancient  institutions  are  not  easily  ascertainable. 
Nevertheless,  the  whole  experience  of  mankind  from 
savagery  to  civilization  was  worked  out  upon  the  Asiatic 
continent,  and  among  its  fragmentary  tribes  the  remains 
of  their  ancient  institutions'  must  now  be  sought. 

Descent  in  the  female  line  is  still  very  common  in  the 

I  Dr.  Freeman,  who  has  studied  this  Subject  specially,  re- 
marks: "The  lowest  unit  In  the  political  system  is  that  which 
still  exists  under  various  names,  as  the  'mark,'  the  'gemelnde,' 
the  'commune,'  or  the  'parish.'  This,  as  we  have  seen,  is  one 
of  many  forms  of  the  'gens'  or  clan,  that  in  which  It  Is  no 
longer  a  wandering  or  a  mere  predatory  body,  but  when,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  has  not  Joined  with  others  to  form  one  com- 
ponent element  of  a  city  commonwealth.  In  this  stage  the 
'gens'  takes  the  form  of  an  agricultural  body,  holding  its  com- 
mon lands— the  germ  of  the  'ager  publicus'  of  Rome,  and  of  the 
'folkland'  of  England.  This  is  the  'markgenossenschaft,'  the 
village  community  of  the  West.  This  lowest  political  unit,  this 
gathering  of  real  or  artificial  kinsmen,  is  made  up  of  families, 
each  living  under  the  rule,  the  'mund'  of  its  own  father,  that 
'patria  potestas'  which  survived  at  Rome  to  form  so  marked 
and  lasting  a  feature  of  Roman  law.  As  the  union  of  families 
forms  the  'gens,'  and  as  the  'gens'  in  its  territorial  aspect  forms 
the  'markgenossenschaft,'  so  the  union  of  several  such  village 
communities  and  their  'marks'  or  common  lands  forms  the  next 
higher  political  union,  the  hundred,  a  name  to  be  foimd  In  one 
shape   or   another   in   most   lands    into   which    the   Teutonic   race 

hns    spread    itself Above    the    hundred    comes    the    'pagup,' 

the  'gau.'  the  Danish  'syssel,'  the  English  'shire,'  that  is,  the 
tribe   looked   at  as   occupying  a  certain   territory.     And   each   of 

these    divisions,    greater    and    smaller,    had    its    chiefs The 

hundred  Is  made  up  of  villages,  marks,  gemeinden,  whatever 
we  call  tlie  lowest  unit;  the  'shire,'  the  'gau,'  the  'pagus,'  is 
made  up  of  hundreds."— "Comparative  Politics,"  McMillan  ft 
Co.'s  ed.,  p.   116. 


QENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMFLY        378 

ruder  Asiatic  tribes ;  but  there  are  numerous  tribes  among 
whom  it  is  traced  in  the  male  Hne.  It  is  the  hmitation  of 
descent  to  one  line  or  the  other,  followed  by  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  body  of  consanguinei_,  thus  separated  under  a 
common  name  which  indicates  a  gens. 

In  the  Magar  tribe  of  Xepaul,  Latham  remarks,  "there 
are  twelve  thums.  All  individuals  belonging  to  the  same 
thum  are  supposed  to  be  descended  from  the  same  male 
ancestor;  descent  from,  the  same  mother  being  by  no 
means  necessary.  So  husband  and  wife  must  belong  to 
different  thums.  Within  one  and  the  same  there  is  no 
marriage.  Do  you  wish  for  a  wife?  If  so,  look  to  the 
thum  of  your  neighbor;  at  any  rate  look  beyond  your 
own.  This  is  the  first  time  I  have  found  occasion  to 
mention  this  practice.  It  will  not  be  the  last;  on  the 
contrary,  the  principle  it  suggests  is  so  common  as  to  be 
almost  universal.  We  shall  find  it  in  Australia ;  we  shall 
find  it  in  North  and  South  America;  we  shall  find  it  in 
Africa ;  we  shall  find  it  in  Europe ;  we  shall  suspect  and 
infer  it  in  many  places  where  the  actual  evidence  of  its 
existence  is  incomplete.'"  In  this  case  we  have  in  the 
thum  clear  evidence  of  the  existence  of  a  gens,  with 
descent  in  the  male  line. 

"^he  Munnieporees,  and  the  following  tribes  inhabit- 
ing the  hills  round  ]Munniepore — the  Koupooes,  the 
Mows,  the  Murams,  and  the  Murring — are  each  and  all 
divided  into  four  families — Koomul.  Looang,  Angom, 
and  Xingthaja.  A  member  of  any  of  these  families  may 
marrv  a  member  of  any  other,  but  the  intermarriage  of 
members  of  the  same  family  is  strictly  prohibited.'"  In 
these  families  may  be  recognized  four  gentes  in  each  of 
these  tribes.  Bell,  speaking  of  the  TeJush  of  the  Circas- 
sians, remarks  that  "the  tradition  in  regard  to  them  is, 
that  the  members  of  each  and  all  sprang  from  the  same 
stock  or  ancestry;  and  thus  they  may  be  considered  as 

so  many  septs  or  clans These  cousins  german, 

or  members  of  the  same  fraternity,  are  not  only  them- 


1    "Descriptive   Ethnology,"   1.   80. 

a  McLennan's  "Primitive  Marriage."  p.   109. 


874  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

selves  interdicted  from  intermarrying,  but  their  serfs,  too, 
must  wed  with  serfs  of  another  fraternity.'"  It  is  proba- 
ble that  the  telush  is  a  gens. 

Among  the  Bengalese  "the  four  castes  are  subdivided 
into  many  different  sects  or  classes,  and  each  of  these  is 
again  subdivided ;  for  instance,  I  am  of  Nundy  tribe 
[gens?],  and  if  I  were  a  heathen  I  could  not  marry  a 
womarr  of  the  same  tribe,  although  the  caste  must  be  the 
same.  The  children  are  of  the  tribe  of  their  father. 
Property  descends  to  the  sons.  In  case  the  person  has  no 
sons,  to  his  daughters ;  and  if  he  leaves  neither,  to  his 
nearest  relatives.  Castes  are  subdivided,  such  as  Shuro, 
which  is  one  of  the  first  divisions;  but  it  is  again  sub- 
divided, such  as  Khayrl,  Tilly,  Tamally,  Tanty,  Chomor, 
Kari,  etc.  A  man  belonging  to  one  of  these  last-named 
subdivisions  cannot  marry  a  woman  of  the  same."*  These 
smallest  groups  number  usually  about  a  hundred  persons, 
and  still  retain  several  of  the  characteristics  of  a  gens. 

Mr.  Tyler  remarks,  that  "in  India  it  is  unlawful  for  a 
Brahman  to  marry  a  wife  whose  clan-name  or  ghotra 
(literally  'cow-stall')  is  the  same  as  his  own,  a  prohibi- 
tion which  bars  marriage  among  relatives  in  the  male 
line  indefinitely.  This  law  appears  in  the  code  of  Manu 
as  applying  to  the  first  three  castes,  and  connexions  on 
the  female  side  are  also  forbidden  to  marry  within  certain 
wide  limits.'"  And  again :  "Among  the  Kols  of  Chota- 
Nagpur,  we  find  many  of  the  Oraon  and  Munda  clans 
named  after  animals,  as  eel,  hawk,  crow,  heron,  and  they 
must  not  kill  or  eat  what  they  are  named  after."* 

The  Mongolians  approach  the  American  aborgines 
quite  nearly  in  physical  characteristics.  They  are  divided 
into  numerous  tribes.  "The  connection,"  says  Latham, 
"between  the  members  of  a  tribe  is  that  of  blood,  pedi- 
gree, or  descent ;  the  tribe  being,  in  some  cases,  named 
after  a  real  or  supposed  patriarch.    The  tribe,  bv  which 


1   Quoted   In   "Primitive  Marriage,"  p.   101. 

a  "Letter  to  the  Author,"  by  Rev.  Gopenath  Nundy.  a  Natlv* 
Bengalese,  India. 

3  "Early  History  of  Mankind,"  p.  282. 

4  "Primitive  Culture,"  Holt  &  Co.'s  ed.,  11,   235. 


GENTES  TN  OTHER  TlRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY       375 

we  translate  the  native  name  ainiaiik,  or  aimdk,  is  a  large 
division  falling  into  so  many  kokhums,  or  banners.'"  The 
statement  is  not  full  enough  to  show  the  existence  of 
gentes.  Their  neighbors,  the  Tungusians  are  composed 
of  subdivisions  named  after  animals,  as  the  horse,  the 
dog,  the  reindeer,  which  imply  the  gentile  organizations, 
but  it  cannot  be  asserted  without  further  particulars. 

Sir  John  Lubbock  remarks  of  the  Kalmucks  that 
according  to  De  Hell,  they  "are  divided  into  hordes,  and 
no  man  can  marry  a  woman  of  the  same  horde ;"  and  of 
the  Ostiaks,  that  they  "regard  it  as  a  crime  to  marry  a 
woman  of  the  same  family  or  even  of  the  same  name ;" 
and  that  "when  a  Jakut  (Siberia)  wishes  to  marry,  he 
must  choose  a  girl  from  another  clan.'"  We  have  in 
each  of  these  cases  evidence  of  the  existence  of  a  gens, 
one  of  the  rules  of  which,  as  has  been  shown,  is  the 
prohibition  of  intermarriage  among  its  members.  The 
Yurak  Samoyeds  are  organized  in  gentes.  Klaproth, 
quoted  by  Latham,  remarks  that  "this  division  of  the 
kinsmanship  is  so  rigidly  observed  that  no  Samoyed  takes 
a  wife  from  the  kinsmanship  to  which  he  himself  belongs. 
On  the  contrary,  he  seeks  her  in  one  of  the  other  two."* 

A  peculiar  family  system  prevails  among  the  Chinese 
which  seems  to  embody  the  remains  of  an  ancient  gentile 
organization.  Mr.  Robert  Hart,  of  Canton,  in  a  letter  to 
the  author  remarks,  "that  the  Chinese  expression  for  the 
people  is  Pilt-stng,  which  means  the  Hundred  Family 
Names;  but  whetlier  this  is  mere  word-painting,  or  had 
its  origin  at  a  time  when  the  Chinese  general  family  con- 
sisted of  one  hundred  subfamilies  or  tribes  [gentes?]  I 
am  unable  to  determine.  At  the  present  day  there  are 
about  four  hundred  family  names  in  this  country,  among 
which  I  find  some  that  have  reference  to  animals,  fruits, 
metals,  natural  objects,  etc.,  and  which  may  be  translated 
as  Horse,  Sheep.  Ox,  Fish,  Bird,  Phoenix,  Plum,  Flower, 
Leaf,  Rice.  Forest,  River,  Hill,  Water,  Cloud,  Gold,  Hide, 


1  "Descriptive    Ethnology,"    1.    290. 

2  "Origin  of  Civilization."  96. 

3  "Descriptive    Ethnology,"    1,    475. 


876  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

Bristles,  etc.,  etc.  In  some  parts  of  the  country  large 
villages  are  met  with,  in  each  of  which  there  exists  but 
one  family  name ;  thus  in  one  district  will  be  found,  say, 
three  villages,  each  containing  two  or  three  thousand  peo- 
ple, the  one  of  the  Horse,  the  second  of  the  Sheep,  and 

the  third  of  the  Ox  family  name Just  as  among  the 

North  American  Indians  husbands  and  wives  are  of  dif- 
ferent tribes  [gentes],  so  in  China  husband  and  wife  are 
always  of  different  families,  i.  e.,  of  different  surnames. 
Custom  and  law  alike  prohibit  intermarriage  on  the  part 
of  people  having  the  same  family  surname.  The  children 
are  of  the  father's  family,  that'  is,  they  take  his  family 
surname Where  the  father  dies  intestate  the  prop- 
erty generally  remains  undivided,  but  under  the  control 
of  the  oldest  son  during  the  life  of  the  widow.  On  her 
death  he  divides  the  property  between  himself  and  his 
brothers,  the  shares  of  the  juniors  depending  entirely  up- 
on the  will  of  the  elder  brother." 

The  family  here  described  appears  to  be  a  gens,  anal- 
ogous to  the  Roman  in  the  time  of  Romulus ;  but  whether 
it  was  reintegrated,  with  other  gentes  of  common  descent, 
in  a  phratry  does  not  appear.  Moreover,  the  gentiles  are 
still  located  as  an  independent  consanguine  body  in  one 
area,  as  the  Roman  gentes  were  localized  in  the  early 
period,  and  the  names  of  the  gentes  are  still  of  the  archaic 
type.  Their  increase  to  four  hundred  by  segmentation 
might  have  been  expected ;  but  their  maintenance  to  the 
present  time,  after  the  period  of  barbarism  has  long 
passed  away,  is  the  remarkable  fact,  and  an  additional 
proof  of  their  immobility  as  a  people.  It  may  be  sus- 
pected also  that  the  monogamian  family  in  these  villages 
has  not  attained  its  full  development,  and  that  commun- 
ism in  living,  and  in  wives  as  well,  may  not  be  unknown 
among  them.  Among  the  wild  aboriginal  tribes,  who 
still  inhabit  the  mountain  regions  of  China  and  who  speak 
dialects  different  from  the  Mandarin,  the  gens  in  its 
archaic  form  may  yet  be  discovered.  To  these  isolated 
tribes,  we  should  naturally  look  for  the  ancient  institu- 
tions of  the  Chinese. 

In  like  manner  the  tribes  of  Afghanistan  are  said  to 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY        377 

be  subdivided  into  clans ;  but  whether  these  clans  are  true 
gentes  has  not  been  ascertained. 

Not  to  weary  the  reader  with  further  details  of  a  sim- 
ilar character,  a  sufficient  number  of  cases  have  been 
adduced  to  create  a  presumption  that  the  gentile  organi- 
zation prevailed  very  generally  and  widely  among  the 
remote  ancestors  of  the  present  Asiatic  tribes  and  nations. 

The  twelve  tribes  of  the  Hebrews,  as  they  appear  in 
the  Book  of  Numbers,  represent  a  reconstruction  of 
Hebrew  society  by  legislative  procurement.  The  condi- 
tion of  barbarism  had  then  passed  away,  and  that  of  civi- 
lization had  commenced.  The  principle  on  which  the 
tribes  were  organized,  as  bodies  of  consanguinei,  presup- 
poses an  anterior  gentile  system,  which  had  remained  in 
existence  and  was  now  systematized.  At  this  time  they 
had  no  knowledge  of  any  other  plan  of  government  than 
a  gentile  society  formed  of  consanguine  groups  united 
through  personal  relations.  Their  subsequent  localiza- 
tion in  Palestine  by  consanguine  tribes,  each  district 
named  after  one  of  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob,  with  the 
exception  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  is  a  practical  recognition 
of  the  fact  that  they  were  organized  by  lineages  and  not 
into  a  community  of  citizens.  The  history  of  the  most 
remarkable  nation  of  the  Semitic  family  has  been  con- 
centrated around  the  names  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and 
Jacob,  and  the  twelve  sons  of  the  latter. 

Hebrew  history  commences  essentially  with  Abraham 
the  account  of  whose  forefathers  is  limited  to  a  pedigree 
barren  of  details.  A  few  passages  will  show  the  extent 
of  the  progress  then  made,  and  the  status  of  advancement 
in  which  Abraham  appeared.  He  is  described  as  "very 
rich  m  cattle,  in  silver,  and  in  gold."  ^  For  the  cave  of 
Machpelah  "Abraham  weighed  to  Ephron  the  silver, 
which  he  had  named  in  the  audience  of  the  sons  of  Heth, 
four  hundred  shekels  of  silver,  current  money  with  the 
merchant."  *  With  respect  to  domestic  life  and  subsist- 
ence, the  following  passage  may  be  cited :    "And  Abra- 


I    "Genesis,"  xlii,   2. 
i  "Genesis,"  xxiii,   16. 


378  ANCIENT   SOCiETf 

ham  hastened  into  the  tent  unto  Sarah,  and  said,  Make 
ready  quickly  three  measures  of  fine  meal ;  knead  it,  and 
make  cakes  upon  the  hearth."  ^  "And  he  took  butter  and 
milk,  and  the  calf  which  he  had  dressed,  and  set  it  before 
them."  ^  With  respect  to'  implements,  raiment  and  orna- 
ments :  "Abraham  took  the  fire  in  his  hand  and  a  knife."  ^ 
"And  the  servant  brought  forth  jewels  of  silver,  and  jew- 
els of  gold,  and  raiment,  and  gave  them  to  Rebekah :  he 
gave  also  to  her  brother  and  to  her  mother  precious 
things."*  When  she  met  Isaac,  Rebekah  "took  a  veil 
and  covered  herself."  ^  In  the  same  connection  are  men- 
tioned the  camel,  ass,  ox,  sheep  and  goat,  together  with 
flocks  and  herds ;  the  grain  mill,  the  water  pitcher,  ear- 
rings, bracelets,  tents,  houses  and  cities.  The  bow  and 
arrow,  the  sword,  corn  and  wine,  and  fields  sown  with 
grain,  are  mentioned.  They  indicate  the  Upper  Status 
of  barbarism  for  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob.  Writing  in 
this  branch  of  the  Semitic  family  was  probably  then  un- 
known. The  degree  of  development  shown  corresponds 
substantially  with  that  of  the  Homeric  Greeks. 

Early  Hebrew  marriage  customs  indicate  the  presence 
of  the  gens,  and  in  its  archaic  form.  Abraham,  by  his 
servant,  seemingly  purchased  Rebekah  as  a  wife  for 
Isaac ;  the  "precious  things"  being  givep  to  the  brother, 
and  to  the  mother  of  the  bride,  but  not  to  the  father.  In 
this  case  the  presents  went  to  the  gentile  kindred,  pro- 
vided a  gens  existed,  with  descent  in  the  female  line. 
Again,  Abraham  married  his  half-sister  Sarah.  "And 
yet  indeed,"  he  says,  "she  is  my  sister ;  she  is  the  daughter 
of  my  father,  but  not  the  daughter  of  my  mother;  and 
she  became  my  wife."  ^ 

With  an  existing  gens  and  descent  in  the  female  line 
Abraham  and  Sarah  would  have  belonged  to  different 
gentes,  and  although  of  blood  kin  they  were  not  of  gen- 
tile kin,  and  could  have  married  by  gentile  usage.     The 

1  lb.,  xviii,  6. 

2  lb.,  xviil,   8. 

3  lb.,  xxli,  6. 

4  lb.,  xxlv,   53. 

5  lb.,  xxiv,  65. 

6  lb.,  XX,  12. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY        37O 

case  would  have  been  reversed  in  both  particulars  with 
descent  in  the  male  line.  Nahor  married  his  niece,  the 
daughter  of  his  brother  Haran ;  *  and  Amram,  the  father 
of  Moses,  married  his  aunt,  the  sister  of  his  father,  who 
became  the  mother  of  the  Hebrew  lawgiver.'^  In  these 
cases,  with  descent  in  the  female  line,  the  persons  mar- 
rying would  have  belonged  to  different  gentes ;  but  other- 
wise with  descent  in  the  male  line.  While  these  cases 
do  not  prove  absolutely  the  existence  of  gentes,  the 
latter  would  afford  such  an  explanation  of  them  as  to 
raise  a  presumption  of  the  existence  of  the  gentile  or- 
ganization in  its  archaic  form. 

When  the  Mosaic  legislation  was  completed  the 
Hebrews  were  a  civilized  people,  but  not  far  enough 
advanced  to  institute  political  society.  The  scripture 
account  shows  that  they  weie  organized  in  a  series  of 
consanguine  groups  in  an  ascending  scale,  analogous  to 
the  gens,  phratry  and  tribe  of  the  Greeks,  In  the  muster 
and  organization  of  the  Hebrews,  both  as  a  society  and 
as  an  army,  while  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  repeated  ref- 
erences are  made  to  these  consanguine  groups  in  an 
ascending  series,  the  seeming  equivalents  of  a  gens. 
phratry  and  tribe.  Thus,  the  tribe  of  Levi  consisted  of 
eight  gentes  organized  in  three  phratries,  as  follows : 

Tribe  of  Levi. 

I.  Gershon.     7,500  Males, 

of    j    II.  Kohath.      8,600  " 

Levi,  (ill,  Merari.       6,200  " 

I.  Gershonite  Phratry. 
Gentes. — i,  Lihni.  2.  Shimei. 

II.  Kohathite  Phratry. 

Gentes. — i.  Amram.     2.  Izhar.     3.  Hebron.     4,  Uzziel. 

III.  Merarite  Phratry. 
Gentes. — i.  Mahli.  2.  Mushi. 

"Number  the  children  of  Levi  after  the  house  of  their 


I  "Genesis,"  xi,  29. 
3  "Exodus,"   vi,   20. 


Sons  ( 


380  ANCIENT   SOCIETjf 

fathers,  by  their  families And  these  were  the  sons 

of  Levi  by  their  names ;  Gershon,  and  Kohath,  and  Mer- 
ari.  And  these  were  the  names  of  the  sons  of  Gershon 
by  their  famiHes ;  Libni,  and  Shimei.  And  the  sons  of 
Kohath  by  their  families ;  Amram,  and  Izhar,  Hebron, 
and  Uzziel.  And  the  sons  of  Merari  by  their  families ; 
Mahli,  and  Mushi.  These  are  the  families  of  the  Le- 
vites  by  the  house  of  their  fathers."   ^ 

The  description  of  these  groups  sometimes  commences 
with  the  upper  member  of  the  series,  and  sometimes  with 
the  lower  or  the  unit.  Thus :  "Of  the  children  of  Sim- 
eon, by  their  generations,  after  their  families,  by  the 
house  of  their  fathers."  ^  Here  the  children  of  Simeon, 
with  their  generations,  constitute  the  tribe ;  the  families 
are  the  phratries;  and  the  house  of  the  father  is  \\\t  gens. 
Again :  "And  the  chief  of  the  house  of  the  father  of  the 
families  of  the  Kohathites  shall  be  Elizaphan  the  son  of 
Uzziel."  ^  Here  we  find  the  gens  first,  and  then  the 
phratry  and  last  the  tribe.  The  person  named  was  the 
chief  of  the  phratry.  Each  house  of  the  father  also  had  its 
ensign  or  banner  to  distinguish  it  from  others.  "Every 
man  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall  pitch  by  his  own 
standard,  with  the  ensign  of  their  father's  house."*  These 
terms  describe  actual  organizations ;  and  they  show  that 
their  military  organization  was  by  gentes,  by  phratries 
and  by  tribes. 

With  respect  to  the  first  and  smallest  of  these  groups, 
"the  house  of  the  father,"  it  must  have  numbered  several 
hundred  persons  from  the  figures  given  of  the  number 
in  each  phratry.  The  Hebrew  term  heth'  ah,  signifies 
paternal  house,  house  of  the  father,  and  family  house.  If 
the  Hebrews  possessed  the  gens,  it  was  this  group  of 
persons.  The  use  of  two  terms  to  describe  it  would  leave 
a  doubt,  unless  individual  families  under  monogamy  had 
then  become  so  numerous  and  so  prominent  that  this  cir- 
cumlocution was  necessary  to  cover  the  kindred.  We 
have  literally,  the  house  of  Amram,  of  Izhar,  of  Hebron, 

I   "Numbers,"   iil.  15-20. 
a     lb.,      1,    22. 

3  lb..     Ill,   30. 

4  lb..      11.    2. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY        381 

and  of  Uzziel ;  but  as  the  Hebrews  at  that  time  could 
have  had  no  conception  of  a  house  as  now  appHed  to  a 
titled  family,  it  probably  signified,  as  used,  kindred  or 
lineage.^  Since  each  division  and  subdivision  is  headed 
by  a  male,  and  since  Hebrew  descents  are  traced  through 
males  exclusively,  descent  among  them,  at  this  time,  was 
undoubtedly  in  the  male  line.  Next  in  the  ascending 
scale  is  the  family,  w'hich  seems  to  be  a  phratry.  The 
Hebrew  term  for  this  organization,  mishpacah,  signifies 
union,  clanship.  It  was  composed  of  two  or  more  houses 
of  the  father,  derived  by  segmentation  from  an  original 
group,  and  distinguished  by  a  phratric  name.  It  answers 
very  closely  to  the  phratry.  The  family  or  phratry  had 
an  annual  sacrificial  feast.  *  Lastly,  the  tribe,  called  in 
Hebrew  mattch,  which  signifies  a  branch,  stem  or  shoot, 
is  the  analogue  of  the  Grecian  tribe. 

Very  few  particulars  are  given  respecting  the  rights, 
privileges  and  obligations  of  the  members  of  these  bodies 
of  consanguinei.  The  idea  of  kin  which  united  each  or- 
ganization from  the  house  of  the  father  to  the  tribe,  is 
carried  out  in  a  form  much  more  marked  and  precise 
than  in  the  corresponding  organizations  of  Grecian, 
Latin  or  American  Indian  tribes.  While  the  Athenian 
traditions  claimed  that  the  four  tribes  were  derived  from 
the  four  sons  of  Ion,  they  did  not  pretend  to  explain  the 
origin  of  the  gentes  and  phratries.  On  the  contrary,  tho 
Hebrew  account  not  only  derives  the  twelve  tribes  gen- 
ealogically from  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob,  but  also  the 
gentes  and  phratries  from  the  children  and  descendants 
of  each.  Human  experience  furnishes  no  parallel  of  the 
growth  of  gentes  and  phratries  precisely  in  this  way. 
The  account  must  be  explained  as  a  classification  of  exist- 
ing consanguine  groups,  according  to  the  knowledge 
preserved  by  tradition,  in  doing  which  minor  obstacles 
were  overcome  by  legislative  constraint. 

The  Hebrews  styled  themselves  the  "People  of  Israel," 

I  Kiel  and  Delitzschs.  in  tiieir  oominentarips  nn  Exodus  v\, 
14,  remark  that  "father's  house  was  a  technical  term  applied 
to  a  collection  of  families  called  by  tlie  name  of  a  common  an- 
cestor."   This  is  a  fair  definition  of  a  gens. 

»  "I  Samuel,"  xx,  6,  29. 


382  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

and  also  a  "Congregation."  ^  It  is  a  direct  recognition  of 
the  fact  that  their  organization  was  social,  and  not  po- 
litical. 

In  Africa  we  encounter  a  chaos  of  savagery  and  bar- 
barism. Original  arts  and  inventions  have  largely  dis- 
appeared, through  fabrics  and  utensils  introduced  from 
external  sources;  but  savagery  in  its  lowest  forms,  can- 
nibalism included,  and  barbarism  in  its  lowest  forms  pre- 
vail over  the  greater  part  of  the  continent.  Among  the 
interior  tribes,  there  is  a  nearer  approach  to  an  indige- 
nous culture  and  to  a  normal  condition;  but  Africa,  in 
the  main,  is  a  barren  ethnological  field. 

Although  the  home  of  the  Negro  race,  it  is  well  known 
that  their  numbers  are  limited  and  their  areas  small. 
Latham  significantly  remarks  that  "the  negro  is  an  ex- 
ceptional African.'"  The  Ashiras,  Aponos,  Ishogos  and 
Ashangos,  between  the  Congo  and  the  Niger,  visited  by 
Du  Chaillu,  are  of  the  true  negro  type.  "Each  village," 
he  remarks,  "had  its  chief,  and  further  in  the  interior  the 
villages  seemed  to  be  governed  by  elders,  each  elder  with 
his  people  having  a  separate  portion  of  the  village  to 
themselves.  There  was  in  each  clan  the  ifoumou,  fumou, 
or  acknowledged  head  of  the  clan  (ifoumou  meaning  the 
source,  the  father).  I  have  never  been  able  to  obtain 
from  the  natives  a  knowledge  concerning  the  splitting  of 
their  tribes  into  clans ;  they  seemed  not  to  know  how  it 
happened,  but  the  formation  of  new  clans  does  not  take 
place  now  among  them.  .  .  .  The  house  of  a  chief  or 
elder  is  not  better  than  those  of  his  neighbors.     The 

despotic  form  of  government  is  unknown A 

council  of  the  elders  is  necessary  before  one  is    put   to 

death Tribes  and  clans  intermarry  with  each 

other,  and  this  brings  about  a  friendly  feeling  among  the 
people.  People  of  the  same  clan  cannot  intermarry  with 
each  other.  The  least  consanguinity  is  considered  an 
abomination ;  nevertheless  the  nephew  has  not  the  slight- 
est objection  to  take  his  uncle's  wives,  and,  as  among  the 


I   "Numbers,"  1,  2. 

i  "Descript.  Eth.,"  11,   184. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY        883 

Balak^i,  the  son  takes  his  father's  wives,  except  his  own 
mother Polygamy  and  slavery  exist  every- 
where among  the  tribes  I  have  visited The  law 

of  inheritance  among  the  Western  tribes  is,  that  the  next 
brother  inherits  the  wealth  of  the  eldest  (women,  slaves, 
etc.),  but  that  if  the  youngest  dies  the  eldest  inherits  his 
property,  and  if  there  are  no  brothers  that  the  nephew- 
inherits  it.  The  headship  of  the  clan  or  family  is  hered- 
itary, following  the  same  law  as  that  of  the  inheritance 
of  property.  In  the  case  of  all  the  brothers  having  died, 
the  eldest  son  of  the  eldest  sister  inherits,  and  it  goes  oh 
thus  until  the  branch  is  extinguished,  for  all  clans  are 
considered  as  descended  from  the  female  side."^ 

All  the  elements  of  a  true  gens  are  embodied  in  the 
foregoing  particulars,  namely,  descent  is  limited  to  one 
line,  in  this  case  the  female,  which  gives  the  gens  in  its 
archaic  form.  IMoreover,  descent  is  in  the  female  line 
with  respect  to  office  and  to  property,  as  well  as  the  gen- 
tile name.  The  office  of  chief  passes  from  brother  to 
brother,  or  from  uncle  to  nephew,  that  nephew  being  the 
son  of  a  sister,  as  among  the  American  aborigines ;  whilst 
the  sons  are  excluded  because  not  members  of  the  gens 
of  the  deceased  chief.  Marriage  in  the  gens  is  also  for- 
bidden. The  only  material  omission  in  these  precise 
statements  is  the  names  of  some  of  the  gentes.  The 
hereditary  feature  requires  further  explanation. 

Among  the  Banyai  of  the  Zambezi  river,  who  are  a 
people  of  higher  grade  than  the  negroes.  Dr.  Livingstone 
observed  the  following  usages :  "The  government  of  the 
Banyai  is  rather  peculiar,  being  a  sort  of  feudal  republic- 
anism. The  chief  is  elected,  and  they  choose  the  son  of 
a  deceased  chief's  sister  in  preference  to  his  own  ofif- 
spring.  When  dissatisfied  with  one  candidate,  they  even 
go  to  a  distant  tribe  for  a  successor,  who  is  usually  of  the 
familv  of  the  late  chief,  a  brother,  or  a  sister's  son,  but 

never  his  own  son  or  daughter All  the  wives, 

goods,  and  children  of  his  predecessor  belong  to  him."* 


I  "Ashan^o  Land,"   Appletons"  ed.,   p.    425,   et   seq. 

"Travels    In    South    Africa,"    Appletons'    cd.,    ch.    30,    p.    660.— 
'When  a  young  man  takes  a  liking  for  a  girl  of  anotner  vll- 


384  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

Dr.  Livingstone  does  not  give  the  particulars  of  their  so- 
cial organization;  but  the  descent  of  the  office  of  chief 
from  brother  to  brother,  or  from  uncle  to  nephew,  im- 
plies the  existence  of  the  gens  with  descent  in  the  female 
line. 

The  numerous  tribes  occupying  the  country  watered 
by  the  Zambezi,  and  from  thence  southward  to  Cape 
Colony,  are  regarded  by  the  natives  themselves,  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Livingstone,  as  one  stock  in  three  great  divis- 
ions, the  Bechuanas,  the  Basutos,  and  the  Kafirs.^  With 
respect  to  the  former,  he  remarks  that  "the  Bechuana 
tribe^  are  named  after  certain  animals,  showing  probably 
that  in  ancient  times  they  were  addicted  to  animal  worship 
like  the  ancient  Egyptians.  The  term  Bakatla  means 
'they  of  the  Monkey';  Bakuona,  'they  of  the  Alligator'; 
Batlapi,  'they  of  the  Fish' ;  each  tribe  having  a  super- 
stitious dread  of  the  animal  after  which  it  is  called.  .  . 
A  tribe  never  eats  the  animal  which  is  its  namesake. 
....  We  find  traces  of  many  ancient  tribes  in  individ- 
ual members  of  those  now  extinct ;  as  Batau,  'they  of  the 
Lion';  Banoga,  'they  of  the  Serpent,'  though  no  such 
tribes  now  exist."'  These  animal  names  are  suggestive 
of  the  gens  rather  than  the  tribe.  Moreover,  the  fact 
that  single  individuals  are  found,  each  of  whom  was  the 
last  survivor  of  his  tribe,  w^ould  be  more  likely  to  have 
occurred  if  gens  were  understood  in  the  place  of  tribe. 
Among  the  Bangalas  of  the  Cassange  Valley,  in  Argola, 
Livingstone  remarks  that  "a  chief's  brother  inherits  in 
preference  to  his  sons.  The  sons  of  a  sister  belong  to  her 
brother ;  and  he  often  sells  his  nephews  to  pay  his  debts."* 
Here  again  we  have  evidence  of  descent  in  the  female 
line ;  but  his  statements  are  too  brief  and  general  in  these 
and  other  cases  to  show  definitely  whether  or  not  they 
possessed  the  gens. 

laRe,  and  the  parents  have  no  objection  to  tlie  match,  he  Is 
obUgcd   to   come   and   live  at   tlieir  village.     He   has   to  perform 

certain  services  for  the  mother-in-law If  he  becomes  tired 

of  living  in  this  state  of  vassalage,  and  wishes  to  return  to 
hlB  own  family,  he  is  obliged  to  leave  all  his  children  behind— 
they  belong  to  his  wife."—  lb.,     p.   667. 

1  "Travels  in   South   Africa,"  p.   219. 

2  lb.,    p.  471. 
0  lb.,    p.   471. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBEK  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY        3g5 

Among  the  Australians  the  gentes  of  the  Kamilaroi 
have  already  been  noticed.  In  ethnical  position  the 
aborigines  of  this  great  island  are  near  the  bottom  of  the 
scale.  When  discovered  they  were  not  only  savages,  but 
in  a  low  condition  of  savagery.  Some  of  the  tribes  were 
cannibals.  Upon  this  last  question  Mr.  Fison,  before 
mentioned,  writes  as  follows  to  the  author :  "Some,  at 
least,  of  the  tribes  are  cannibals.  The  evidence  of  this 
is  conclusive.  The  Wide  Bay  tribes  eat  not  only  their 
enemies  slain  in  battle,  but  their  friends  also  who  have 
been  killed,  and  even  those  who  have  died  a  natural  death, 
provided  they,  are  in  good  condition.  Before  eating  they 
skin  them,  and  preserve  the  skins  by  rubbing  them  with 
mingled  fat  and  charcoal.  These  skins  they  prize  very 
highly,  believing  them  to  have  great  medicinal  value." 

Such  pictures  of  human  life  enable  us  to  understand 
the  condition  of  savagery,  the  grade  of  its  usages,  the 
degree  of  material  development,  and  the  low  level  of  the 
mental  and  moral  life  of  the  people.  Australian  human- 
ity, as  seen  in  their  cannibal  customs,  stands  on  as  low-  a 
plane  as  it  has  been  knov.n  to  touch  on  the  earth.  And 
yet  the  Australians  possessed  an  area  of  continental 
dimensions,  rich  in  minerals,  not  uncongenial  in  climate, 
and  fairly  supplied  with  the  means  of  subsistence.  But 
after  an  occupation  which  must  be  measured  by  thou- 
sands of  years,  they  are  still  savages  of  the  grade  above 
indicated.  Left  to  themselves  they  would  probably  have 
remained  for  thousands  of  years  to  come,  not  without 
any,  but  with  such  slight  improvement  as  scarcely  to 
lighten  the  dark  shade  of  their  savage  state. 

Among  the  Australians,  whose  institutions  are  normal 
and  homogeneous,  the  organization  into  gentes  is  not 
confined  to  the  Kamilaroi,  but  seems  to  be  universal.  The 
Narrinyeri  of  South  Australia,  near  Lacepede  Bay  are 
organized  in  gentes  named  after  animals  and  insects. 
Rev.  George  Taplin,  writing  to  my  friend  Mr.  Fison. 
after  stating  that  the  Xarrinyeri  do  not  marry  into  their 
own  gens,  and  that  the  children  were  of  the  gens  of  their 
father,  continues  as  follows :  "There  are  no  castes,  nor 
are  there  anv  classes,  similar  to  those  of  the  Kamilaroi- 


886  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

speaking  tribes  of  New  South  Wales.  But  each  tribe  or 
family  (and  a  tribe  is  a  family)  has  its  totem,  or  ngaitye; 
and  indeed  some  individuals  have  this  ngaitye.  It  is 
regarded  as  the  man's  tutelary  genius.    It  is  some  animal, 

bird,  or  insect The  natives  are  very  strict 

in  their  marriage  arrangements.  A  tribe  [gens]  is  con- 
sidered a  family,  and  a  man  never  marries  into  his  own 
tribe." 

Mr.  Fison  also  writes,  "that  among  the  tribes  of  the 
Maranoa  district,  Queensland,  whose  dialect  is  called 
Urghi,  according  to  information  communicated  to  me  by 
Mr.  A.  S.  P.  Cameron,  the  same  classification  exists  as 
among  the  Kamilaroi-speaking  tribes,  both  as  to  the  class 
names  and  the  totems."  With  respect  to  the  Australians 
of  the  Darling  River,  upon  information  communicated  by 
Mr.  Charles  G.  N.  Lockwood,  he  further  remarks,  that 
"they  are  subdivided  into  tribes  (gentes),  mentioning  the 
Emu,  Wild  Duck,  and  Kangaroo,  but  without  saying 
whether  there  are  others,  and  that  the  children  take  both 
the  class  name  and  totem  of  the  mother."^ 

From  the  existence  of  the  gentile  organization  among 
the  tribes  named  its  general  prevalence  among  the  Austra- 
lian aborigines  is  rendered  probable ;  although  the  institu- 
tion, as  has  elsewhere  been  pointed  out,  is  in  the  incipient 
stages  of  its  development. 

Our  information  with  respect  to  the  domestic  institu- 
tions of  the  inhabitants  of  Polynesia,  Micronesia  and  the 
Papuan  Islands  is  still  limited  and  imperfect.  No  traces 
of  the  gentile  organization  have  been  discovered  among 
the  Hawaiians,  Samoans,  Marquesas  Islanders  or  New 
Zealanders.  Their  system  of  consanguinity  is  still  prim- 
itive, showing  that  their  institutions  have  not  advanced 
as  far  as  this  organization  presupposes.*  In  some  of  the 
Micronesian  Islands  the  office  of  chief  is  transmitted 
through  females  ;*  but  this  usage  might  exist  indepen- 
dently of  the  gens.  The  Fijians  are  subdivided  into 
several  tribes  speaking  dialects  of    the  same  stock  lan- 

I  See  also  Taylor's  "Early  History  of  Mankind,"  p.  284. 
»  "Systems  of  ConsanRulnlty,"   etc.,  loc.  clt.,  pp.   451,   482. 
3  "Missionary  Herald,"   1853,  p.   90. 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY        387 

gnage.  One  of  these,  the  Rewas,  consists  of  four  subdivi- 
sions under  distinctive  names,  and  each  of  these  is  again 
subdivided.  It  does  not  seem  probable  that  the  last  sub- 
divisions are  gentes,  for  the  reason,  among  others,  that 
its  members  are  allowed  to  intermarry.  Descent  is  in  the 
male  Hne.  In  like  manner  the  Tongans  are  composed  of 
divisions,  which  are  again  subdivided  the  same  as  the 
Rewas. 

Around  the  simple  ideas  relating  to  marriage  and  the 
family,  to  subsistence  and  to  government,  the  earliest 
social  organizations  were  formed ;  and  with  them  an  ex- 
position of  the  structure  and  principle  of  ancient  society 
must  commence.  Adopting  the  theory  of  a  progressive 
development  of  mankind  through  the  experience  of  the 
ages,  the  insulation  of  the  inhabitants  of  Oceanica,  their 
limited  local  areas,  and  their  restricted  means  of  sub- 
sistence predetermined  a  slow  rate  of  progress.  They 
still  represent  a  condition  of  mankind  on  the  continent  of 
Asia  in  times  immensely  remote  from  the  present ;  and 
while  peculiarities,  incident  to  their  insulation,  undoubt- 
edly exist,  these  island  societies  represent  one  of  the  early 
phases  of  the  great  stream  of  human  progress.  An  ex- 
position of  their  institutions,  inventions  and  discoveries, 
and  mental  and  moral  traits,  would  supply  one  of  the 
great  needs  of  anthropological  science. 

This  concludes  the  discussion  of  the  organization  into 
gentes,  and  the  range  of  its  distribution.  The  organiza- 
tion has  been  found  among  the  Australians  and  African 
Negroes,  with  traces  of  the  system  in  other  .\frican 
tribes.  It  has  been  found  generally  prevalent  among  that 
portion  of  the  American  aborigines  who  when  discovered 
were  in  the  Lower  Status  of  l)arbarism ;  and  also  among 
a  portion  of  the  Milage  Indians  who  were  in  the  Middle 
Status  of  barbarism.  In  like  manner  it  existed  in  full 
vitality  among  the  Grecian  and  Latin  tribes  in  the  Upper 
Status  of  barbarism  ;  with  traces  of  it  in  several  of  the 
remaining  branches  of  the  Aryan  family.  The  organiza- 
tion has  been  found,  or  traces  of  its  existence,  in  the 
Turanian,  Uralian  and  Mongolian  families;  in  the  Tun- 
gusian  and  Chinese  stocks,  and  in  the    Semitic    family 


388  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

among  the  Hebrews.  Facts  sufficiently  numerous  and 
commanding  have  been  adduced  to  claim  for  it  an  ancient 
universality  in  the  human  family,  as  well  as  a  general 
prevalence  through  the  latter  part  of  the  period  of  savag- 
ery, and  throughout  the  period  of  barbarism. 

The  investigation  has  also  arrayed  a  sufficient  body  of 
facts  to  demonstrate  that  this  remarkable  institution  was 
the  origin  and  the  basis  of  Ancient  Society.  It  was  the 
first  organic  principle,  developed  through  experience, 
which  was  able  to  organize  society  upon  a  definite  plan, 
and  hold  it  in  organic  unity  until  it  was  sufficiently 
advanced  for  the  transition  into  political  society.  Its 
antiquity,  its  substantial  universality  and  its  enduring 
vitality  are  sufficiently  shown  by  its  perpetuation  upon  all 
the  continents  to  the  present  time.  The  wonderful  adapt- 
ability of  the  gentile  organization  to  the  wants  of  man- 
kind in  these  several  periods  and  conditions  is  sufficiently 
attested  by  its  prevalence  and  by  its  preservation.  It  has 
been  identified  with  the  most  eventful  portion  of  the  ex- 
perience of  mankind. 

Whether  the  gens  originates  spontaneously  in  a  given 
condition  of  society,  and  would  thus  repeat  itself  in 
disconnected  areas ;  or  whether  it  had  a  single  origin,  and 
was  propagated  from  an  original  center,  through  succes- 
sive migrations,  over  the  earth's  surface,  are  fair  ques- 
tions for  speculative  consideration.  The  latter  hypothesis, 
with  a  simple  modification,  seems  to  be  the  better  one, 
for  the  following  reasons :  We  find  that  two  forms  of 
marriage,  and  two  forms  of  the  family  preceded  the 
institution  of  the  gens.  It  required  a  peculiar  experience 
to  attain  to  the  second  form  of  marriage  and  of  the 
family,  and  to  supplement  this  experience  by  the  inven- 
tion of  the  gens.  This  second  form  of  the  family  was  the 
final  result,  through  natural  selection,  of  the  reduction 
within  narrower  limits  of  a  stupendous  conjugal  system 
which  enfolded  savage  man  and  held  him  with  a  power- 
ful grasp.  His  final  deliverance  was  too  remarkable  and 
too  improbable,  as  it  would  seem,  to  be  repeated  many 
different  times,  and  in  widely  separated  areas.  Groups 
of  consanguinei,  united  for  protection    and    subsistence, 


GENTES  IN  OTHER  TRIBES  OF  HUMAN  FAMILY        ^SQ 

doubtless,  existed  from  the  infancy  of  the  human  family; 
but  the  gens  is  a  very  different  body  of  kindred.  It  takes 
a  part  and  excludes  the  remainder ;  it  organized  this  part 
on  the  bond  of  kin,  under  a  commion  name,  and  with 
common  rights  and  privileges.  Intermarriage  in  the  gens 
was  prohibited  to  secure  the  benefits  of  marrying  out 
with  unrelated  persons,  This  was  a  vital  principle  of  the 
organism  as  well  as  one  most  difficult  of  establishment. 
Instead  of  a  natural  and  obvious  conception,  the  gens  was 
essentially  abstruse ;  and,  as  such,  a  product  of  high  intel- 
ligence for  the  times  in  which  it  originated.  It  required 
long  periods  of  time,  after  the  idea  was  developed  into 
life,  to  bring  it  to  maturity  with  its  uses  evolved.  The 
Polynesians  had  this  punaluan  family,  but  failed  of 
inventing  the  gens ;  the  Australians  had  the  same  form  of 
the  family  and  possessed  the  gens.  It  originates  in  the 
punaluan  family,  and  whatever  tribes  had  attained  to  it 
possessed  the  elements  out  of  which  the  gens  was  formed. 
This  is  the  modification  of  the  hypothesis  suggested.  In 
the  prior  organization,  on  the  basis  of  sex,  the  germ  of 
the  gens  existed.  When  the  gens  had  become  fully  devel- 
oped in  its  archaic  form  it  would  propagate  itself  over 
immense  areas  through  the  superior  powers  of  an  im- 
proved stock  thus  created.  Its  propagation  is  more  easily 
explained  than  its  institution.  These  considerations  tend 
to  show,  the  improbability  of  its  repeated  reproduction  in 
disconnected  ?.reas.  On  the  other  hand,  its  beneficial 
effects  in  producing  a  stock  of  savages  superior  to  any 
then  existing  upon  the  earth  must  be  admitted.  When 
migrations  were  flights  under  the  law  of  savage  life,  or 
movements  in  quest  of  better  areas,  such  a  stock  would 
spread  in  wave  after  wave  until  it  covered  the  larger  part 
of  the  earth's  surface.  A  consideration  of  the  principal 
facts  now  ascertained  bearing  upon  this  question  seems 
to  favor  the  hypothesis  of  a  single  origin  of  the  organiza- 
tion into  gentes,  unless  we  go  back  of  this  to  the  Austra- 
lian classes,  which  gave  the  punaluan  famijy  out  of  which 
the  gens  originated,  and  regard  these  classes  as  the  orig- 
inal basis  of  ancient  society.  In  this  event  wherever  the 
classes  were  established,  the  gens  existed  potentially. 


SdO  ANCIENT  SOCIETY  ^ 

Assuming  the  unity  of  origin  of  mankind,  the  occupa- 
tion of  the  earth  occurred  through  migrations  from  an 
original  center.  The  Asiatic  continent  must  then  be 
regarded  as  the  cradle-land  of  the  species,  from  the  great- 
er number  of  original  types  of  man  it  contains  in  com- 
parison with  Europe,  Africa  and  America.  It  would  also 
follow  that  the  separation  of  the  Negroes  and  Australians 
from  the  common  stem  occurred  when  society  was  organ- 
ized on  the  basis  of  sex,  and  when  the  family  was  puna- 
luan;  that  the  Polynesian  migration  occurred  later,  but 
with  society  similarly  constituted ;  and  finally,  that  the 
Ganowanian  migration  to  America  occurred  later  still, 
and  after  the  institution  of  the  gentes.  These  inferences 
are  put  forward  simply  as  suggestions. 

A  knowledge  of  the  gens  and  its  attributes,  and  of  the 
range  of  its  distribution,  is  absolutely  necessary  to  a  prop- 
er comprehension  of  Ancient  Society.  This  is  the  great 
subject  now  requiring  special  and  extended  investigation. 
This  society  among  the  ancestors  of  civilized  nations  at- 
tained its  highest  development  in  the  last  days  of  bar- 
barism. But  there  were  phases  of  that  same  society  far 
back  in  the  anterior  ages,  which  must  now  be  sought 
among  barbarians  and  savages  in  corresponding  condi- 
tions. The  idea  of  organized  society  has  been  a  growth 
through  the  entire  existence  of  the  human  race ;  its  sev- 
eral phases  are  logically  connected,  the  one  giving  birth 
to  the  other  in  succession,  and  that  form  of  it  we  have 
been  contemplating  originated  in  the  gens.  No  other  insti- 
tution of  mankind  has  held  such  an  ancient  and  remark- 
able relation  to  the  course  of  human  progress.  The  real 
history  of  mankind  is  contained  in  the  history  of  the 
growth  and  development  of  institutions,  of  which  the 
gens  is  but  one.  It  is,  however,  the  basis  of  those  which 
have  exercised  the  most  material  influence  upon  human 
afTairs. 


PART   III. 

GROWTH  OF  THE  IDEA  OF  THE  FAMILY 


CHAPTER  I 


THE   ANCIENT    FAMILY 


We  have  been  accustoined  to  regard  the  monogamian 
family  as  the  form  which  has  always  existed;  but  inter- 
rupted in  exceptional  areas  by  the  patriarchal.  Instead 
of  this,  the  idea  of  the  family  has  been  a  growth'  through 
successive  stages  of  development,  the  monogamian  being 
the  last  in  its  series  of  forms.  It  will  be  my  object  to 
show  that  it  was  preceded  by  more  ancient  forms  which 
prevailed  universally  throughout  the  period  of  savagery, 
through  the  Older  and  into  the  ^Middle  Period  of  barbar- 
ism ;  and  that  neither  the  monogamian  nor  the  patriarchal 
can  be  traced  back  of  the  Later  Period  of  barbarism. 
They  were  essentially  modern.  Moreover,  they  were  im- 
possible in  ancient  society,  until  an  anterior  experience 
under  earlier  forms  in  every  race  of  mankind  had  pre- 
pared the  way  for  their  introduction. 

Five  different  and  successive  forms  may  now  be  distin- 
guished, each  having  an  institution  of  marriage  peculiar 
to  itself.    They  are  the  following : 

I.  The  Consanguine  Family. 

It  was  founded  upon  the  intermarriage  of  brothers  and 
sisters,  own  and  collateral,  in  a  group. 

II,  The  Punahtan  Family. 

It  was  founded  upon  the  intermarriage  of  several  sis- 
ters, own  and  collateral,  with  each  other's  husbands,  in  a 
group ;  the  joint  husbands  not  being  necessarily  kinsmen 
of  each  other.  Also,  on  the  intermarriage  of  several 
brothers,  own  and  collateral,  with  each  other's  wives,  in 
a  group ;  these  wives  not  being  necessarily  of  kin  to  each 

393 


894  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

Other,  although  often  the  case  in  both  instances.  In  each 
case  the  group  of  men  were  conjointly  married  to  the 
group  of  women, 

III.  The  Syndyasmian  or  Pairing  Family. 

It  was  founded  upon  marriage  between  single  pairs, 
but  without  an  exclusive  cohabitation.  The  marriage 
continued  during  the  pleasure  of  the  parties. 

IV.  The  Patriarchal  Family. 

It  was  founded  upon  the  marriage  of  one  man  with 
eeveral  wives ;  followed,  in  general,  by  the  seclusion  of 
the  wives. 

V.  The  Monogamian  Family. 

It  was  founded  upon  marriage  between  single  pairs, 
with  an  exclusive  cohabitation. 

Three  of  these  forms,  namely,  the  first,  second,  and 
fifth,  were  radical ;  because  they  were  sufficiently  general 
and  influential  to  create  three  distinct  systems  of  con- 
sanguinity, all  of  which  still  exist  in  living  forms. 
Conversely,  these  systems  are  sufficient  of  themselves  to 
prove  the  antecedent  existence  of  the  forms  of  the  family 
and  of  marriage,  with  which  they  severally  stand  con- 
nected. The  remaining  two,  the  syndyasmian  and  the 
patriarchal,  were  intermediate,  and  not  sufficiently  influ- 
ential upon  human  afifairs  to  create  a  new,  or  modify 
essentially  the  then  existing  system  of  consanguinity.  It 
will  not  be  supposed  that  these  types  of  the  family  are 
separated  from  each  other  by  sharply  defined  lines ;  on 
the  contrary,  the  first  passes  into  the  second,  the  second 
into  the  third,  and  the  third  into  the  fifth  by  insensible 
gradations.  The  propositions  to  be  elucidated  and  estab- 
lished are,  that  they  have  sprung  successively  one  from 
the  other,  and  that  they  represent  collectively  the  growth 
of  the  idea  of  the  family. 

In  order  to  explain  the  rise  of  these  several  forms  of 
the  family  and  of  marriage,  it  will  be  necessary  to  present 
the  substance  of  the  system  of  consanguinity  and  affinity 
which  pertains  to  each.  These  systems  embody  com- 
pendious and  decisive  evidence,  free  from  all  suspicion  of 
design,  bearing  directly  upon  the  question.  Moreover, 
they  speak  with  an  authority  and  certainty  which  leave 


THE   ANCIENT   FAMILY  885 

no  room  to  doubt  the  inferences  therefrom.  But  a  system 
of  consanguinity  is  intricate  and  perplexing  until  it  is 
brought  into  familiarity.  It  will  tax  the  reader's  patience 
to  look  into  the  subject  far  enough  to  be  able  to  test  the 
value  and  weight  of  the  evidence  it  contains.  Having 
treated  at  length,  in  a  previous  work,  the  "Systems  of 
Consanguinity  and  Affinity  of  the  Human  Family,'"  I 
shall  confine  the  statements  herein  to  the  material  facts, 
reduced  to  the  lowest  number  consistent  with  intelligi- 
bility, making  reference  to  the  other  work  for  fuller 
details,  and  for  the  general  Tables.  The  importance  of 
the  main  proposition  as  a  part  of  the  history  of  man, 
namely,  that  the  family  has  been  a  growth  through  sev- 
eral successive  forms,  is  a  commanding  reason  for  the  pre- 
sentation and  study  of  these  systems,  if  they  can  in  truth 
establish  the  fact.  It  will  require  this  and  the  four  suc- 
ceeding chapters  to  make  a  brief  general  exhibition  of 
the  proof. 

The  most  primitive  system  of  consanguinity  yet  discov- 
ered is  found  among  the  Polynesians,  of  which  the 
Hawaiian  will  be  used  as  typical.  I  have  called  it  the 
Malayan  system.  Under  it  all  consanguinei,  near  and 
remote,  fall  within  some  one  of  the  following  relation- 
ships ;  namely,  parent,  child,  grandparent,  grandchild, 
brother,  and  sister.  No  other  blood  relationships  arc 
recognized.  Beside  these  are  the  marriage  relationships. 
This  system  of  consanguinity  came  in  with  the  first  form 
of  the  family,  the  consanguine,  and  contains  the  principal 
evidence  of  its  ancient  existence.  It  may  seem  a  narrow 
basis  for  so  important  an  inference ;  but  if  we  are  justi- 
fied in  assuming  that  each  relationship  as  recognized  was 
the  one  which  actually  existed,  the  inference  is  fully 
sustained.  This  system  prevailed  very  generally  in  Pol- 
ynesia, although  the  family  among  them  had  passed  out 
of  the  consanguine  into  the  punaluan.  It  remained 
unchanged  because  no  motive  sufficiently  strong,  and  no 
alteration  of  institutions  sufficiently  radical  had  occurred 
to  produce  its  modification.  Intermarriage  between  broth- 

I   "SmlthaoDlan   Contributions   to   Knowledge,"  vol.  xvlL 


SM  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

ers  and  sisters  had  not  entirely  disappeared  from  the 
Sandwich  Island  when  the  American  missions,  about 
fifty  years  ago,  were  established  among  them.  Of  the 
ancient  general  prevalence  of  this  system  of  consanguin- 
ity over  Asia  there  can  be  no  doubt,  because  it  is  the  basis 
of  the  Turanian  system  still  prevalent  in  Asia.  It  also 
underlies  the  Chinese. 

In  course  of  time,  a  second  great  system  of  consanguin- 
ity, the  Turanian,  supervened  upon  the  first,  and  spread 
over  a  large  part  of  the  earth's  surface.  It  was  universal 
among  the  North  American  aborigines,  and  has  been 
traced  sufficiently  among  those  of  South  America  to 
render  probable  its  equally  universal  prevalence  among 
them.  Traces  of  it  have  been  found  in  parts  of  Africa ; 
but  the  system  of  the  African  tribes  in  general  ap- 
proaches nearer  the  Malayan.  It  still  prevails  in  South 
India  among  the  Hindus  who  speak  dialects  of  the  Dra- 
vidian  language,  and  also,  in  a  modified  form,  in  North 
India,  among  the  Hindus  who  speak  dialects  of  the  Gaum 
language.  It  also  prevails  in  Australia  in  a  partially 
developed  state,  where  it  seems  to  have  originated  either 
in  the  organization  into  classes,  or  in  the  incipient  organ- 
ization into  gentes,  which  led  to  the  same  result.  In  the 
principal  tribes  of  the  Turanian  and  Ganowanian  families, 
it  owes  its  origin  to  punaluan  marriage  in  the  group  and 
to  the  gentile  organization,  the  latter  of  which  tended  to 
repress  consanguine  marriages.  It  has  been  shown  how 
this  was  accomplished  by  the  prohibition  of  intermarriage 
in  the  gens,  which  permanently  excluded  own  brothers 
and  sisters  from  the  marriage  relation.  When  the  Turan- 
ian system  of  consanguinity  came  in  the  form  of  the 
family  was  punaluan.  This  is  proven  by  the  fact  that 
punaluan  marriage  in  the  group  explains  the  principal 
relationships  under  the  system ;  showing  them  to  be  those 
which  would  actually  exist  in  virtue  of  this  form  of 
marriage.  Through  the  logic  of  the  facts  we  are  enabled 
to  show  that  the  punaluan  family  was  once  as  wide-spread 
as  the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity.  To  the  or- 
ganization into  gentes  and  the  punaluan  family,  the 
Turanian  system  of  consanguinity  must  be  ascribed.  It  will 


^    '  THE    ANCIENT    FAMILY  397 

be  seen  in  the  sequel  that  this  system  was  formed  out  of 
the  Malayan,  by  changing  those  relationships,  only  which 
resulted  from  the  previous  intermarriage  of  brothers  and 
sisters,  own  and  collateral,  and  which  were,  in  fact, 
changed  by  the  gentes ;  thus  proving  the  direct  connection 
between  them.  The  powerful  influence  of  the  gentile  or- 
ganization upon  society,  and  particularly  upon  the  puna- 
luan  group,  is  demonstrated  by  this  change  of  systems. 

The  Turanian  system  is  simply  stupendous.  It  recog- 
nizes all  the  relationships  known  under  the  Aryan  system, 
besides  an  additional  number  unnoticed  by  the  latter. 
Consanguinei,  near  and  remote,  are  classified  into  cate- 
gories; and  are  traced,  by  means  peculiar  to  the  system, 
far  beyond  the  ordinary  range  of  the  Aryan  system.  In 
familiar  and  in  formal  salutation,  the  people  address  each 
other  by  the  term  of  relationship,  and  never  by  the  per- 
sonal name,  which  tends  to  spread  abroad  a  knowledge 
of  the  system  as  well  as  to  preserve,  by  constant  recogni- 
tion, the  relationship  of  the  most  distant  kindred.  Where 
no  relationship  exists,  the  form  of  saluation  is  simply 
"my  friend."  No  other  system  of  consanguinity  found 
among  men  approaches  it  in  elaborateness  of  discrimina- 
tion or  in  the  extent  of  special  characteristics. 

When  the  American  aborigines  were  discovered,  the 
family  among  them  had  passed  out  of  the  punaluan  into 
the  sydyasmian  form ;  so  that  the  relationships  recognized 
by  the  system  of  consanguinity  were  not  those,  in  a  num- 
ber of  cases,  which  actually  existed  in  the  syndyasmian 
family.  It  was  an  exact  repetition  of  what  had  occur- 
red under  the  Malayan  system,  where  the  family  had 
passed  out  of  the  consanguine  into  the  punaluan, 
the  system  of  consanguinity  remaining  unchanged ;  so 
that  while  the  relationships  given  in  the  Malayan 
system  were  those  which  actually  existed  in  the 
consanguine  family,  they  were  untrue  to  a  part 
of  those  in  the  punaluan  family.  In  like 
manner,  while  the  relationships  given  in  the  Turanian 
system  are  those  which  actually  existed  in  the  punaluan 
family,  they  were  untrue  to  a  part  of  those  in  the  syndy- 
asmian.    The   form    of  the    familv   advances    faster  of 


898  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

necessity  than  systems  of  consanguinity,  which  follow  to 
record  the  family  relationships.  As  the  establishment  of 
the  punaluan  family  did  not  furniih  adequate  motives  to 
reform  the  Malayan  system,  so  the  growth  of  the  syndy- 
asmian  family  did  not  supply  adequate  motives  to  reform 
the  Turanian.  It  required  an  institution  as  great  as  the 
gentile  organization  to  change  the  Malayan  system  into 
the  Turanian;  and  it  required  an  institution  as  great  as 
property  in  the  concrete,  with  its  rights  of  ownership  and 
of  inheritance,  together  with  the  monogamian  family 
which  it  created,  to  overthrow  the  Turanian  system  of 
consanguinity  and  substitute  the  Aryan. 

In  further  course  of  time  a  third  great  system  of  con- 
sanguinity came  in,  which  may  be*  called,  at  pleasure,  the 
Aryan,  Semitic,  or  Uralian,  and  probably  superseded  a 
prior  Turanian  system  among  the  principal  nations,  who 
afterwards  attained  civilization.  It  is  the  system  which 
defines  the  relationships  in  the  monogamian  family.  This 
system  was  not  based  upon  the  Turanian,  a«  the  latter 
was  upon  the  Malayan ;  but  it  superseded  among  civilized 
nations  a  previous  Turanian  system,  as  can  be  shown  by 
other  proofs. 

The  last  four  forms  of  the  family  have  existed  within  the 
historical  period;  but  the  first,  the  consanguine,  has  dis- 
appeared. Its  ancient  existence,  however,  can  be  deduced 
from  the  Malayan  system  of  consanguinity.  We  have 
then  three  radical  forms  of  the  family,  which  represent 
three  great  and  essentially  different  conditions  of  life, 
with  three  different  and  well-marked  systems  of  con- 
sanguinity, sufficient  to  prove  the  existence  of  these  farn- 
ilies,  if  they  contained  the  only  proofs  remaining.  This 
affirmation  will  serve  to  draw  attention  to  the  singular 
permanence  and  persistency  of  systems  of  consanguinity, 
and  to  the  value  of  the  evidence  they  embody  with  respect 
to  the  condition  of  ancient  society. 

Each  of  these  families  ran  a  long  course  in  the  tribes 
of  mankind,  with  a  period  of  infancy,  of  maturity,  and 
of  decadence.  The  monogamian  family  owes  its  origin 
to  property,  as  the  syndyasmian.  which  contained  its 
germ,  owed  its  origin  to  the  gens.    When  the   Grecian 


THE   ANCIENT   FAMILY  399 

tribes  first  came  under  historical  notice,  the  monogamian 
family  existed ;  but  it  did  not  become  completely  estab- 
lished until  positive  legislation  had  determined  its  status 
and  its  rights.  The  growth  of  the  idea  of  property  in 
the  human  mind,  through  its  creation  and  enjoyment,  and 
especially  through  the  settlement  of  legal  rights  with 
respect  to  its  inheritance,  are  intimately  connected  with 
the  establishment  of  this  form  of  the  family.  Property 
became  sufficiently  powerful  in  its  influence  to  touch  the 
organic  structure  of  society.  Certainty  with  respect  to 
the  paternity  of  children  would  now  have  a  significance 
unknown  in  previous  conditions.  Marriage  between  sin- 
gle pairs  had  existed  from  the  Older  Period  of  barbarism, 
under  the  form  of  pairing  during  the  pleasure  of  the 
parties.  It  had  tended  to  grow  more  stable  as  ancient 
society  advanced,  with  the  improvement  of  institutions, 
and  with  the  progress  of  inventions  and  discoveries  into 
higher  successive  conditions ;  but  the  essential  element  of 
the  monogamian  family,  an  exclusive  cohabitation,  was 
still  wanting.  Man  far  back  in  barbarism  began  to  exact 
fidelity  from  the  wife,  under  savage  penalties,  but  he 
claimed  exemption  for  himself.  The  obligation  is  neces- 
sarily reciprocal,  and  its  performance  correlative.  Among 
the  Homeric  Greeks,  the  condition  of  woman  in  the  fam- 
ily relation  was  one  of  isolation  and  marital  domination, 
with  imperfect  rights  and  excessive  inequality.  A  com- 
parison of  the  Grecian  family,  at  successive  epochs,  from 
the  Homeric  age  to  that  of  Pericles,  shows  a  sensible 
improvement,  with  its  gradual  settlement  into  a  defined 
institution.  The  modem  family  is  an  unquestionable  im- 
provement upon  that  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans ;  because 
woman  has  gained  immensely  in  social  position.  From 
standing  in  the  relation  of  a  daughter  to  her  husband,  as 
among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  she  has  drawn  nearer  to 
an  equality  in  dignity  and  in  acknowledged  personal 
rights.  We  have  a  record  of  the  monogamian  family, 
running  back  nearly  three  thousand  years,  during  which, 
it  may  be  claimed,  there  has  been  a  gradual  but  continu- 
«5us  improvement  in  its  character.  It  is  destined  to  pro- 
cess  still   further,   until   the    equality   of   the   sexes   is 


400  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

acknowledged,  and  the  equities  of  the  marriage  relation 
are  completely  recognized.  We  have  similar  evidence, 
though  not  so  perfect,  of  the  progressive  improvement  of 
the  syndyasmian  family,  which,  commencing  in  a  low 
type,  ended  in  the  monogamian.  These  facts  should  be 
held  in  remembrance,  because  they  are  essential  in  this 
discussion. 

In  previous  chapters  attention  has  been  called  to  the 
stupendous  conjugal  system  which  fastened  itself  upon 
mankind  in  the  infancy  of  their  existence,  and  followed 
them  down  to  civilization  ;  although  steadily  losing  ground 
with  the  progressive  improvement  of  society.  The  ratio 
of  human  progress  may  be  measured  to  some  extent  by 
the  degree  of  the  reduction  of  this  system  through  the 
moral  elements  of  society  arrayed  against  it.  Each  suc- 
cessive form  of  the  family  and  of  marriage  is  a  signifi- 
cant registration  of  this  reduction.  After  it,  was  reduced 
to  zero,  and  not  until  then,  was  the  monogamian  family 
possible.  This  family  can  be  traced  far  back  in  the  Later 
Period  of  barbarism,  where  it  disappears  in  the  syndy- 
asmian. 

Some  impression  is  thus  gained  of  the  ages  which 
elapsed  while  these  two  forms  of  the  family  were  run- 
ning their  courses  of  growth  and  development.  But  the 
creation  of  five  successive  forms  of  the  family,  each  dif- 
fering from  the  other,  and  belonging  to  conditions  of 
society  entirely  dissimilar,  augments  our  conception  of  the 
length  of  the  periods  during  which  the  idea  of  the  family 
was  developed  from  the  consanguine,  through  interme- 
diate forms,  into  the  still  advancing  monogamian.  No 
institution  of  mankind  has  had  a  more  remarkable  or 
more  eventful  history,  or  embodies  the  results  of  a  more 
prolonged  and  diversified  experience.  It  required  the 
highest  mental  and  moral  efforts  through  numberless 
ages  of  time  to  maintain  its  existence  and  carry  it  through 
its  several  stages  into  its  present  form. 

Marriage  passed  from  the  punaluan  through  the  syn- 
dyasmian into  the  monogamian  form  without  any  mate- 
rial change  in  the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity.  This 
system,  which  records  the  relationships  in  punaluan  fam- 


THE    ANCIENT   FAMILY  40t 

ilies,  t  *mained  substantially  unchanged  until  the  establish- 
ment cf  the  monogamian  family,  when  it  became  almost 
totally  untrue  to  the  nature  of  descents,  and  even  a  scan- 
dal ui>on  monogamy.  To  illustrate  :  Under  the  Malayan 
systenj  a  man  calls  his  brother's  son  his  son,  because  his 
brother's  wife  is  his  wife  as  well  as  his  brother's ;  and 
his  sijter's  son  is  also  his  son  because  his  sister  is  his 
wife.  Under  the  Turanian  system  his  brother's  son  is 
still  hlrf  son,  and  for  the  same  reason,  but  his  sister's  son 
is  now  his  nephew,  because  under  the  gentile  organiza- 
tion hi^  sister  has  ceased  to  be  his  wife.  Among  the  Iro- 
quois, where  the  family  is  syndyasmian,  a  man  still  calls 
his  brc.ther's  son  his  son,  although  his  brother's  wife  has 
ceased  to  be  his  wife ;  and  so  with  a  large  number  of 
relationships  equally  inconsistent  with  the  existing  form 
of  marriage.  The  system  has  survived  the  usages  in 
which  it  originated,  and  still  maintains  itself  among  them, 
although  untrue  in  the  main,  to  descents  as  they  now 
exist.  No  motive  adequate  to  the  overthrow  of  a  great 
and  ancient  system  of  consanguinity  had  arisen.  Mo- 
nogamy when  it  appeared  furnished  that  motive  to  the 
Aryan  nations  as  they  drew  near  to  civilization.  It 
assured  the  paternity  of  children  and  the  legitimacy  of 
heirs.  A  reformation  of  the  Turanian  system  to  accord 
with  monogamian  descents  was  impossible.  It  was  false 
to  monogamy  through  and  through.  A  remedy,  how- 
ever, existed,  at  once  simple  and  complete.  The  Turan- 
ian system  was  dropped,  and  the  descriptive  method, 
which  the  Turanian  tribes  always  employed  when  they 
wished  to  make  a  given  relationship  specific,  was  sub- 
stituted in  its  place.  They  fell  back  upon  the  bare  facts 
of  consanguinity  and  described  the  relationship  of  each 
person  by  a  combination  of  the  primary'  terms.  Thus, 
they  taid  brother's  son,  brother's  grandson ;  father's 
brother,  and  father's  brother's  son.  Each  phrase  described 
a  person,  leaving  the  relationship  a  matter  of  implication. 
Such  was  the  system  of  the  Aryan  nations,  as  we  find  it 
in  its  most  ancient  form  among  the  Grecian,  Latin,  San- 
skritic,  Germanic,  and  Celtic  tribes ;  and  also  in  the  Sem- 
itic, as  wPness  the  Hebrew  Scripture  genealogies.  Traces 


402  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

of  the  Turanian  system,  some  of  which  have  been  referrf.d 
to,  remained  among  the  Aryan  and  Semitic  nations  down 
to  the  historical  period ;  but  it  was  essentially  uprooted, 
and  the  descriptive  system  substituted  in  its  place. 

To  illustrate  and  confirm  these  several  propositions  it 
\vill  be  necessary  to  take  up,  in  the  order  of  their  origina- 
tion, these  three  systems  and  the  three  radical  forms  of 
the  family,  which  appeared  in  connection  with  them 
respectively.     They  mutually  interpret  each  other. 

A  system  of  consanguinity  considered  in  itself  is  of  but 
little  importance.  Limited  in  the  number  of  ideas  It 
embodies,  and  resting  apparently  upon  simple  sugges- 
tions, it  would  seem  incapable  of  afifording  useful  infor- 
mation, and  much  less  of  throwing  light  upon  the  early 
condition  of  mankind.  Such,  at  least,  would  be  the  nat- 
ural conclusion  when  the  relationships  of  a  group  of  kin- 
dred are  considered  in  the  abstract.  But  when  the  system 
of  many  tribes  is  compared,  and  it  is  seen  to  rank  as  a 
domestic  institution,  and  to  have  transmitted  itself 
through  immensely  protracted  periods  of  time,  it  assumes 
a  very  different  aspect.  Three  such  systems,  one  succeed- 
ing the  other,  represent  the  entire  growth  of  the  family 
from  the  consanguine  to  the  monogamian.  Since  we  have 
a  right  to  suppose  that  each  one  expresses  the  actual  rela- 
tionships which  existed  in  the  family  at  the  time  of  its 
establishment,  it  reveals,  in  turn,  the  form  of  marriage 
^nd  of  the  family  which  then  prevailed,  although  both 
may  have  advanced  into  a  higher  stage  while  the  system 
of  consanguinity  remained  unchanged. 

It  will  be  noticed,  further,  that  these  systems  are  nat- 
ural growths  with  the  progress  of  society  from  a  lower 
into  a  higher  condition,  the  change  in  each  case  being 
marked  by  the  appearance  of  some  institution  affecting 
deeply  the  constitution  of  society.  The  relationship  of 
mother  and  child,  of  brother  and  sister,  and  of  grand- 
mother and  grandchild  has  been  ascertainable  in  all 
ages  with  entire  certainty ;  but  those  of  father  and  child, 
and  of  grandfather  and  grandchild  were  not  ascertainable 
with  certainty  until  monogamy  contributed  the  highest 
assurance  attainable,    A  number  of  persons  would  stand 


THE    ANCIENT   FAMILY  40g 

it!  each  of  these  relations  at  the  same  time  as  equally 
probable  when  marriage  was  in  the  group.  In  the  rudest 
conditions  of  ancient  society  these  relationships  would  be 
perceived,  both  the  actual  and  the  probable,  and  terms 
would  be  invented  to  express  them.  A  system  of  con- 
sanguinity would  result  in  time  from  the  continued  appli- 
cation of  these  terms  to  persons  thus  formed  into  a  group 
of  kindred.  But  the  form  of  the  system,  as  before  stated, 
would  depend  upon  the  form  of  marriage.  Where  mar- 
riages were  between  brothers  and  sisters,  own  and  col- 
lateral, in  the  group,  the  family  would  be  consanguine, 
and  the  system  of  consanguinity  Malayan.  Where  mar- 
riages were  between  several  sisters  with  each  other's  hus- 
bands in  a  group,  and  between  several  brothers  with  each 
other's  wives  in  a  group,  the  family  would  be  punaluan, 
and  the  system  of  consanguinity  Turanian ;  and  where 
marriage  was  between  single  pairs,  with  an  exclusive 
cohabitation,  the  family  would  be  monogamian,  and  the 
system  of  consanguinity  would  be  Aryan.  Consequently 
the  three  systems  are  founded  upon  three  forms  of  mar- 
riage ;  and  they  seek  to  express,  as  near  as  the  fact  could 
be  known,  the  actual  relationship  which  existed  between 
persons  under  these  forms  of  marriage  respectively.  It 
will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  they  do  not  rest  upon  nature, 
but  upon  marriage ;  not  upon  fictitious  considerations,  but 
upon  fact ;  and  that  each  in  its  turn  is  a  logical  as  well 
as  truthful  system.  The  evidence  they  contain  is  of  the 
highest  value,  as  well  as  of  the  most  suggestive  character. 
It  reveals  the  condition  of  ancient  society  in  the  plainest 
manner  w^ith  unerring  directness. 

These  systems  resolve  themselves  into  two  ultimate 
forms,  fundamentally  distinct.  One  of  these  is  classifi- 
catory,  and  the  other  descriptive.  Under  the  first,  con- 
sanguine! are  never  described,  but  are  classified  into  cat- 
egories, irrespective  of  their  nearness  or  remoteness  in 
degree  to  Ego;  and  the  same  term  of  relationship  is 
applied  to  all  the  persons  in  the  same  category.  Thus  my 
own  brothers,  and  the  sons  of  my  father's  brothers  are  all 
alike  my  brothers ;  my  own  sisters,  and  the  daughters  of 
my  mother's  sisters  are  all  alike  my  sisters;  such  is  the 


404  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

classification  under  both  the  Malayan  and  Turanian  sys- 
tems. In  the  second  case  consanguinei  are  described 
either  by  the  primary  terms  of  relationship  or  a  combi- 
nation of  these  terms,  thus  making  the  relationship  of 
each  person  specific.  Thus  we  say  brother's  son;  father's 
brother,  and  father's  brother's  son.  Such  was  the  system 
of  the  Aryan,  Semitic,  and  Uralian  families,  which  came 
in  with  monogamy.  A  small  amount  of  classification  was 
subsequently  introduced  by  the  invention  of  common 
terms ;  but  the  earliest  form  of  the  system,  of  which  the 
Erse  and  Scandinavian  are  typical,  was  purely  descrip- 
tive, as  illustrated  by  the  above  examples.  The  radical 
difference  between  the  two  systems  resulted  from  plural 
marriages  in  the  group  in  one  case,  and  from  single  mar- 
riages between  single  pairs  in  the  other. 

While  the  descriptive  system  is  the  same  in  the  Aryan, 
Semitic,  and  Uralian  families,  the  classificatory  has  two 
distinct  forms.  First,  the  Malayan,  which  is  the  oldest 
in  point  of  time ;  and  second,  the  Turanian  and  Gano- 
wanian,  which  are  essentially  alike  and  were  formed  by 
the  modification  of  a  previous  Malayan  system. 

A  brief  reference  to  our  own  system  of  consanguinity 
will  bring  into  notice  the  principles  which  underlie  all 
systems. 

Relationships  are  of  two  kinds :  First,  by  consanguinity 
or  blood ;  second,  by  affinity  or  marriage.  Consanguinity 
is  also  of  two  kinds,  lineal  and  collateral.  Lineal  consan- 
guinity is  the  connection  which  subsists  among  persons 
of  whom  one  is  descended  from  the  other.  Collateral 
consanguinity  is  the  connection  which  exists  between  per- 
sons who  are  descended  from  common  ancestors,  but  not 
from  each  other.    Marriage  relationships  exist  by  custom. 

Not  to  enter  too  specially  into  the  subject,  it  may  be 
stated  generally  that  in  every  system  of  consanguinity, 
where  marriage  between  single  pairs  exists,  there  must 
be  a  lineal  and  several  collateral  lines,  the  latter  diverg- 
ing from  the  former.  Each  person  is  the  centre  of  a 
group  of  kindred,  the  E^o  from  whom  the  degree  of  rela- 
tionship of  each  person  is  reckoned,  and  to  whom  the  rela- 
tionship, returns.    His  position  is  necessarily  in  the  iineal 


THE    ANCIENT   FAMILY  404 

line,  and  that  line  is  vertical.  Upon  it  may  be  inscribed, 
above  and  below  him,  his  several  ancestors  and  descend- 
ants in  a  direct  series  from  father  to  son,  and  these  per- 
sons together  will  constitute  his  right  lineal  male  line. 
Out  of  this  trunk  line  emerge  the  several  collateral  lines, 
male  and  female,  which  are  numbered  outwardly.  It  will 
be  sufficient  for  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the  system  to  rec- 
ognize the  main  lineal  line,  and  a  single  male  and  female 
branch  of  the  first  five  collateral  lines,  including  those  on 
the  father's  side,  and  on  the  mother's  side,  and  proceed- 
ing in  each  case  from  the  parent  to  one  only  of  his  or 
her  children,  although  it  will  include  but  a  small  portion 
of  the  kindred  of  Ego,  either  in  the  ascending  or  descend- 
ing series.  An  attempt  to  follow  all  the  divisions  and 
branches  of  the  several  collateral  lines,  which  increase  in 
number  in  the  ascending  series  in  a  geometrical  ratio, 
would  not  render  the  system  more  intelligible. 

The  first  collateral  line,  male,  consists  of  my  brother 
and  his  descendants;  and  the  first,  female,  of  my  sister 
and  her  descendants.  The  second  collateral  line,  male,  on 
the  father's  side,  consists  of  my  father's  brother  and  his 
descendants ;  and  the  second,  female,  of  my  father's  sister 
and  her  descendants :  the  second,  male,  on  the  mother's 
side,  is  composed  of  my  mother's  brother  and  his  de- 
scendants ;  and  the  second,  female,  of  my  mother's  sister 
and  her  descendants.  The  third  collateral  line,  male,  on 
the  father's  side,  consists  of  my  grandfather's  brother  and 
his  descendants ;  and  the  third,  female,  of  my  grandfath- 
er's sister  and  her  descendants ;  on  the  mother's  side  the 
same  line,  in  its  male  and  female  branches,  is  composed  of 
my  grandmother's  brother  and  sister  and  their  descend- 
ants respectively.  It  will  be  noticed,  in  the  last  case,  that 
we  have  turned  out  of  the  lineal  line  on  the  father's  side 
into  that  on  the  mother's  side.  The  fourth  collateral  line, 
male  and  female,  commences  with  great-grandfather's 
brother  and  sister:  and  great-grandmother's  brother  and 
sister :  and  the  fifth  collateral  line,  male  and  female,  with 
ereat-erreat-grand father's  brother  and  sister;  and  with 
great-great-grandmother's  brother  and  sister,  and  each 


406  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

line  and  branch  is  run  out  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
third.  These  five  Hues,  with  the  hneal,  embrace  the  great 
body  of  our  kindred,  who  are  within  the  range  of  prac- 
tical recognition. 

An  additional  explanation  of  these  several  lines  is 
required.  If  I  have  several  brothers  and  sisters,  they, 
with  their  descendants,  constitute  as  many  lines,  each  in- 
dependent of  the  other,  as  I  have  brothers  and  sisters ; 
but  altogether  they  form  my  first  collateral  line  in  two 
branches,  a  male  and  a  female.  In  like  manner,  the  sev- 
eral brothers  and  sisters  of  my  father,  and  of  my  mother, 
with  their  respective  descendants,  make  up  as  many  lines, 
each  independent  of  the  other,  as  there  are  brothers  and 
sisters ;  but  they  all  unite  to  form  the  second  collateral 
line  in  two  divisions,  that  on  the  father's  side,  and  that 
on  the  mother's  side ;  and  in  four  principal  branches,  two 
male,  and  two  female.  If  the  third  collateral  line  were 
run  out  fully,  in  its  several  branches,  it  would  give  four 
general  divisions  of  ancestors,  and  eight  principal 
branches ;  and  the  number  of  each  would  increase  in  the 
same  ratio  in  each  successive  collateral  line. 

With  such  a  mass  of  divisions  and  branches,  embracing 
such  a  multitude  of  consanguinei,  it  will  be  seen  at  once 
that  a  method  of  arrangement  and  of  description  which 
maintained  each  distinct  and  rendered  the  whole  intelli- 
gible would  be  no  ordinary  achievement.  This  task  was 
perfectly  accomplished  by  the  Roman  civilians,  whose 
method  has  been  adopted  by  the  principal  European 
nations,  and  is  so  entirely  simple  as  to  elicit  admiration.  ^ 
The  development  of  the  nomenclature  to  the  requisite 
extent  must  have  l)een  so  extremely  difficult  that  it  would 
probably  never  have  occurred  except  under  the  stimulus 
of  an  urgent  necessity,  namely,  the  need  of  a  code  of 
descents  to  regulate  the  inheritance  of  property. 

To  render  the  new  form  attainable,  it  was  necessary  to 
discriminate  the  relationships  of  uncle  and  aunt  on  the 
father's  side  and  on  the  mother's  side  by  concrete  terms, 

I  "Pandects,"  lib.  xxxvlll,  title  x.  De  gradlbus,  et  ad  flnlbus 
*t  nomlnlbus  eorum:  and  "Institutes  of  Justinian,"  lib.  Ill,  title 
vl.    De   gradlbus   cognatlonem. 


THE    ANCIENT    FAMILY  4O7 

an  achievement  made  in  a  few  only  of  the  languages  of 
mankind.  These  terms  finally  appeared  among  the 
Romans  in  patruiis  and  amita,  for  uncle  and  aunt  on  the 
father's  side,  and  in  avunculus  and  matertera  for  the 
same  on  the  mother's  side.  After  these  were  invented, 
the  improved  Roman  method  of  describing  consanguinei 
became  established. '  It  has  been  adopted,  in  its  essen- 
tial features,  by  the  several  branches  of  the  Aryan  family, 
with  the  exception  of  the  Erse,  the  Scandinavian,  and  the 
Slavonic. 

The  Aryan  system  necessarily  took  the  descriptive  form 
when  the  Turanian  was  abandoned,  as  in  the  Erse.  Every 
relationship  in  the  lineal  and  first  five  collateral  lines,  to 
the  number  of  one  hundred  and  more,  stands  independent, 
requiring  as  many  descriptive  phases,  or  the  gradual  in- 
vention of  common  terms. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  two  radical  forms — the  clas- 
sificatory  and  descriptive — yield  nearly  the  exact  line  of 
demarkation  between  the  barbarous  and  civilized  nations. 
Such  a  result  might  have  been  predicted  from  the  law  of 
progress  revealed  by  these  several  forms  of  marriage  and 
of  the  family. 

Systems  of  consanguinity  are  neither  adopted,  modi- 
fied, nor  laid  aside  at  pleasure.  They  are  identified  in  their 
origin  with  organic  movements  of  society  which  produced 
a  great  change  of  condition.  When  a  particular  form  had 
come  into  general  use,  with  its  nomenclature  invented  and 
its  methods  settled,  it  would,  fr9m  the  nature  of  the  case, 
be  very  slow  to  change.  Every  human  being  is  the  centre 
of  a  group  of  kindred,  and  therefore  every  person  is  com- 
pelled to  use  and  to  understand  the  prevailing  system.  A 
change  in  any  one  of  these  relationships  would  be  ex- 
tremely difficult.  This  tendency  to  permanence  is  in- 
creased by  the  fact  that  these  systems  exist  by  custom 
rather  than  legal  enactment,  as  growths  rather  than 
artificial  creations,  and   therefore    a    motive  to   change 

I  Our  term  aunt  Is  from  'amlta,"  and  uncle  from  "avunculus. 
"Avus,"  grandfather,  gives  "avunculus""  by  adding  the  diminu- 
tive. It  therefore  signifies  a  "little  grandfather."  "Matertera" 
Is  supposed  to  be  derived  from  "mater"  and  "altera,"  equal  to 
another  mother. 


406  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

must  be  as  universal  as  the  usage.  While  every  per- 
son is  a  party  to  the  system,  the  channel  of  its  trans- 
mission is  the  blood.  Powerful  influences  thus  existed  to 
perpetuate  the  system  long  after  the  conditions  under 
which  each  originated  had  been  modified  or  had  alto- 
gether disappeared.  This  element  of  permanence  gives 
certainty  to  conclusions  drawn  from  the  facts,  and  has 
preserved  and  brought  forward  a  record  of  ancient  soci- 
ety which  otherwise  would  have  been  entirely  lost  to 
human  knowledge. 

It  will  not  be  supposed  that  a  system  so  elaborate  as  the 
Turanian  could  be  maintained  in  different  nations  and 
families  of  mankind  in  absolute  identicalness.  Diverg- 
ence in  minor  particulars  is  found,  but  the  radical  feat- 
ures are,  in  the  main,  constant.  The  system  of  consan- 
guinity of  the  Tamil  people,  of  South  India,  and  that  of 
the  Seneca-Iroquois,  of  New  York,  are  still  identical 
through  two  hundred  relationships ;  an  application  of  nat- 
ural logic  to  the  facts  of  the  social  condition  without  a 
parallel  in  the  history  of  the  human  mind.  There  is  also 
a  modified  form  of  the  system,  which  stands  alone  and 
tells  its  own  story.  It  is  that  of  the  Hindi,  Bengali,  Mar- 
athi,  and  other  people  of  North  India,  formed  by  a  com- 
bination of  the  Aryan  and  Turanian  systems.  A  civilized 
people,  the  Brahmins,  coalesced  .with  a  barbarous  stock, 
and  lost  their  language  in  the  new  vernaculars  named, 
which  retain  the  grammatical  structure  of  the  aboriginal 
speech,  to  which  the  Sanskrit  gave  ninety  per  cent  of  its 
vocables.  It  brought  their  two  systems  of  consanguinity 
into  collision,  one  founded  upon  monogamy  or  syndy- 
asmy,  and  the  other  upon  plural  marriages  in  the  group, 
resulting  in  a  mixed  system.  The  aborigines,  who  pre- 
ponderated in  number,  impressed  upon  it  a  Turanian 
character,  while  the  Sanskrit  element  introduced  such 
modifications  as  saved  the  monogamian  family  from 
reproach.  The  Slavonic  stock  seems  to  have  been  derived 
from  this  intermixture  of  races.  A  system  of  consan- 
guinity which  exhibits  but  two  phases  through  the  per- 
iods of  savagery  and  of  barbarism  and  projects  a  third 
but  modified  form  far  into  the  period  of  civilization,  man- 


THE    ANCIENT   FAMILY  409 

ifests  an  element    of    permanence    calculated    to    arrest 
attention. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  consider  the  patriarchal 
family  founded  upon  polygamy.  From  its  limited  prev- 
alence it  made  but  little  impression  upon  human  affairs. 

The  house  life  of  savages  and  barbarians  has  not  been 
studied  with  the  attention  the  subject  deserves.  Among 
the  Indian  tribes  of  North  America  the  family  was  syndy- 
asmian;  but  they  lived  generally  in  joint-tenement  houses 
and  practiced  communism  within  the  household.  As  we 
descend  the  scale  in  the  direction  of  the  punaluan  and 
consanguine  families,  the  household  group  becomes 
larger,  with  more  persons  crowded  together  in  the  same 
apartment.  The  coast  tribes  in  Venezuela,  among  whom 
the  family  seems  to  have  been  punaluan,  are  represented 
by  the  discoverers  as  living  in  bell-shaped  houses,  each 
containing  a  hundred  and  sixty  persons.  ^  Husbands  and 
wives  lived  together  in  a  group  in  the  same  house,  and 
generally  in  the  same  apartment.  The  inference  is  rea- 
sonable that  this  mode  of  house  life  was  very  general  in 
savagery. 

An  explanation  of  the  origin  of  these  systems  of  con- 
sanguinity and  affinity  will  be  offered  in  succeeding 
chapters.  They  will  be  grounded  upon  the  forms  of 
marriage  and  of  the  family  which  produced  them,  the 
existence  of  these  forms  being  assumed.  If  a  satisfactory 
explanation  of  each  system  is  thus  obtained,  the  antecedent 
existence  of  each  form  of  marriage  and  of  the  family  may 
be  deduced  from  the  system  it  explains.  In  a  final  chap- 
ter an  attempt  will  be  made  to  articulate  in  a  sequence 
the  principal  institutions  which  have  contributed  to  the 
growth  of  the  family  through  successive  forms.  Our 
knowledge  of  the  early  condition  of  mankind  is  still  so 
limited  that  w^e  must  take  the  best  indications  attainable. 
The  sequence  to  be  presented  is,  in  part,  hypothetical; 
but  it  is  sustained  by  a  sufficient  body  of  evidence  to  com- 
mend it  to  consideration.  Its  complete  establishment  must 
be,  left  to  the  results  of  future  ethnological  investigations. 


I    Herrera's  "History  of  America,"  1,  216.  218,  348. 


CHAPTER  II 


THE   CONSANGUINE    FAMILY 


The  existence  of  the  Consanguine  family  must  oe 
proved  by  other  evidence  than  the  production  of  the  fam- 
ily itself.  As  the  first  and  most  ancient  form  of  the  insti- 
tution, it  has  ceased  to  exist  even  among  the  lowest  tribes 
of  savages.  It  belongs  to  a  condition  of  society  out  of 
which  the  least  advanced  portion  of  the  human  race  have 
emerged.  Single  instances  of  the  marriage  of  a  brother 
and  sister  in  barbarous  and  even  in  civilized  nations  have 
occurred  within  the  historical  period ;  but  this  is  very 
different  from  the  inter-marriage  of  a  number  of  them  in 
a  group,  in  a  state  of  society  in  which  such  marriages 
predominated  and  formed  the  basis  of  a  social  system. 
There  are  tribes  of  savages  in  the  Polynesian  and  Papuan 
Islands,  and  in  Australia,  seemingly  not  far  removed 
from  the  primitive  state ;  but  they  have  advanced  beyond 
the  condition  the  consanguine  family  implies.  Where, 
then,  it  may  be  asked,  is  the  evidence  that  such  a  family 
ever  existed  among  mankind?  Whatever  proof  is  adduced 
must  be  conclusive,  otherwise  the  proposition  is  not  estab- 
lished. It  is  found  in  a  system  of  consanguinity  and 
affinity  which  has  outlived  for  unnumbered  centuries  the 
marriage  customs  in  wdiich  it  originated,  and  which 
remains  to  attest  the  fact  that  such  a  family  existed  when 
the  system  was  formed. 

That  system  is  the  IMalayan.  It  defines  the  relation- 
ships that  would  exist  in  a  consanguine  family ;  and  it 
demands  the  existence  of  such  a  family  to  account  for  its 
own  existence.     Moreover,  it  proves  with  moral  certainty 

410 


THE   CONSANGUINE  TaMILY  411 

the  existence  of  a  consanguine  family  when  the  system 
was  formed. 

This  system,  which  is  the  most  archaic  yet  discovered, 
will  now  be  taken  up  for  the  purpose  of  showing-,  from  its 
relationships,  the  principal  facts  stated.  This  family, 
also,  is  the  most  archaic  form  of  the  institution  of  which 
any  knowledge  remains. 

Such  a  remarkable  record  of  the  condition  of  ancient 
society  would  not  have  been  preserved  to  the  present 
time  but  for  the  singular  permanence  of  systems  of  con- 
sanguinity. The  Aryan  system,  for  example,  has  stood 
near  three  thousand  years  without  radical  change,  and 
would  endure  a  hundred  thousand  years  in  the  future, 
provided  the  monogamian  family,  whose  relationships  it 
defines;  should  so  long  remain.  It  describes  the  relation- 
ships which  actually  exist  under  monogamy,  and  is  there- 
fore incapable  of  change,  so  long  as  the  family  remains 
as  at  present  constituted.  If  a  new  form  of  the  family 
should  appear  among  Aryan  nations,  it  would  not  affect 
the  present  system  of  consanguinit}-  until  after  it  became 
universal ;  and  while  in  that  case  it  might  modify  the  sys- 
tem in  some  particulars,  it  would  not  overthrow  it,  unless 
the  new  family  were  radically  different  from  the  mono- 
gamian. It  was  precisely  the  same  with  its  immediate 
predecessor,  the  Turanian  system,  and  before  that  with 
the  ISIalavan,  the  predecessor  of  the  Turanian  in  the  order 
of  derivative  growth.  An  antiquity  of  unknown  duration 
mav  be  assigned  to  the  Malayan  system  which  came  in 
with  the  consanguine  family,  remained  for  an  indefinite 
period  after  the  punaluan  family  appeared,  and  seems  to 
have  been  displaced  in  other  tribes  by  the  Turanian,  with 
the  establishment  of  the  organization  into  gentes. 

The  inhabitants  of  Polynesia  are  included  in  the  ^Nlalay- 
an  familv.  Their  system  of  consanguinity  has  been  called 
the  Malayan,  although  the  Malays  proper  have  modified 
their  own  in  some  particulars.  Among  the  Hawaiians 
and  other  Polynesian  tribes  there  still  exists  in  daily  use 
a  system  of  consanguinity  which  is  given  in  the  Table, 
and  may  be  pronounced  the  oldest  known  among  man- 


412  ANClEKl*  SOCIETY 

kind.  The  Hawaiian  and  Rotuman  ^  forms  are  used  as 
typical  of  the  system.  It  is  the  simplest,  and  therefore 
the  oldest  form,  of  the  classificatory  system,  and  reveals 
the  primitive  form  on  which  the  Turanian  and  Ganow- 
anian  were  afterwards  engrafted. 

It  is  evident  that  the  Malayan  could  not  have  been 
derived  from  any  existing  system,  because  there  is  none, 
of  which  any  conception  can  be  formed,  more  elementary. 
The  only  blood  relationships  recognized  are  the  primary, 
which  are  five  in  number,  without  distinguishing  sex. 
All  consanguinei,  near  and  remote,  are  classified  under 
these  relationships  into  five  categories.  Thus,  myself, 
my  brothers  and  sisters,  and  my  first,  second,  third^  and 
more  remote  male  and  female  cousins,  are  the  first  grade 
or  category.  All  these,  without  distinction,  are  my 
brothers  and  sisters.  The  word  cousin  is  here  used  in 
our  sense,  the  relationship  being  unknown  in  Polynesia. 
My  father  and  mother,  together  with  their  brothers  and 
sisters,  and  their  first,  second,  and  more  remote  cousins, 
are  the  second  grade.  All  these,  without  distinction,  are 
my  parents.  My  grandfathers  and  grandmothers,  on  the 
father's  side  and  on  the  mother's  side,  with  their  brothers 
and  sisters,  and  their  several  cousins,  are  the  third  grade. 
All  these  are  my  grandparents.  Below  me,  my  sons  and 
daughters,  with  their  several  cousins,  as  before,  are  the 
fourth  grade.'  All  these,  without  distinction,  are  mv  chil- 
dren. My  grandsons  and  granddaughters,  with  their  sev- 
eral cousins,  are  the  fifth  grade.  All  these  in  like  man- 
ner are  my  grandchildren.  Moreover,  all  the  individuals 
of  the  same  grade  are  brothers  and  sisters  to  each  other. 
In  this  manner  all  the  possible  kindred  of  any  given  per- 
son are  brought  into  five  categories ;  each  person  apply- 
ing to  every  other  person  in  the  same  category  with  him- 
self or  herself  the  same  term  of  relationship.  Particular 
attention  is  invited  to  the  five  grades  of  relations  in  the 
Malayan  system,  because  the  same  classification  appears 


I  The  Rotuman  is  herein  for  the  first  time  published.  It  was 
worked  out  by  the  Rev.  John  Osborn,  Wesleyan  missionary  at 
Rotuma,  and  procured  and  forwarded  to  the  author  by  the 
Rev.   Lorimer  Flson,  of  Sydney,  Australia. 


THE  CONSANGUINE  FAMILY  413 

in  the  "Nine  Grades  of  Relations"  of  the  Chinese,  which 
are  extended  so  as  to  include  two  additional  ancestors  and 
two  additional  descendants,  as  will  elsewhere  be  shown. 
A  fundamental  connection  between  the  two  systems  is 
thus  discovered. 

There  are  terms  in  Hawaiian  for  grandparent,  Kuf'- 
piind,  for  parent;  Mdkiia;  for  child,  Kaikec:  and  for 
grandchild,  Moopiina.  Gender  is  expressed  by  adding 
the  terms  Kana,  for  male,  and  W^dheena,  for  female; 
thus,  Kupiind  Kana  =  grandparent  male,  and  Kupiind, 
Wdhcena,  grandparent  female.  They  are  equivalent  to 
grandfather  and  grandmother,  and  express  these  relation- 
ships in  the  concrete.  Ancestors  and  descendants,  above 
and  below  those  named,  are  distinguished  numerically,  as 
first,  second,  third,  when  it  is  necessary  to  be  specific ; 
but  in  common  usage  Kiipund  is  applied  to  all  persons 
above  grandparent,  and  Moopnnd  is  applied  to  all 
descendants  below  grandchild. 

The  relationships  of  brother  and  sister  are  conceived 
in  the  twofold  form  of  elder  and  younger,  and  separate 
terms  are  applied  to  each ;  but  it  is  not  carried  out  with 
entire  completeness.  Thus,  in  Hawaiian,  from  which 
the  illustrations  will  be  taken,  we  have : 

Elder  Brother,  Male  Speaking,  "Kaikuaana."  Female  Speak- 
ing, "Kaikunana." 

Younger  Brother,  Male  Speaking,  "Kaikaina."  Female  Speak- 
ing,  "Kaikuniina." 

Elder  Sister,  Male  Speaking,  "Kaikuwaheena."  Female  Speak- 
ing,  "Kaikuaana." 

Younger  Sister,  Male  Speaking,  "Kaikuwaheena."  Female 
Speaking,   "Kaikaina."  i 

It  will  be  observed  that  a  man  calls  his  elder  brother 
Kaikuaana,  and  that  a  woman  calls  her  elder  sister  the 
same;  that  a  man  calls  his  younger  brother  Kaikaina,  and 
a  woman  calls  her  younger  sister  the  same :  hence  these 
terms  are  in  common  gender,  and  suggest  the  same  idea 
found  in  the  Karen  system,  namely,  that  of  predecessor 
and  successor  in  birth.'  A  single  term  is  used  by  the 
males  for  elder  and  younger  sister,  and  a  single  term  by 

1  a  as  in  ale;  a  as  a  in  father;  &  as  a  in  at;  l  as  1  in  It;  u  as 
oo  in  food. 

2  "Systems  of  Consanj^uinity,"   loc.  cit.,   p.   445. 


414  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

the  females  for  elder  and  younger  brother.  It  thus 
appears  that  while  a  man's  brothers  are  classified  into 
elder  and  younger,  his  sisters  are  not ;  and,  while  a 
woman's  sisters  are  classified  into  elder  and  younger,  her 
brothers  are  not.  A  double  set  of  terms  are  thus  devel- 
oped, one  of  which  is  used  by  the  males  and  the  other  by 
the  females,  a  peculiarity  which  reappears  in  the  system 
of  a  number  of  Polynesian  tribes.^  Among  savage  and 
barbarous  tribes  the  relationships  of  brother  and  sister 
are  seldom  conceived  in  the  abstract. 

The  substance  of  the  system  is  contained  in  the  five 
categories  of  consanguine! ;  but  there  are  special  features 
to  be  noticed  which  wall  require  the  presentation  in  detail 
of  the  first  three  collateral  lines.  After  these  are  shown 
the  connection  of  the  system  with  the  intermarriage  of 
brothers  and  sisters,  own  and  collateral,  in  a  group,  will 
appear  in  the  relationships  themselves. 

First  collateral  line.  In  the  male  branch,  with  myself 
a  male,  the  children  of  my  brother,  speaking  as  a  ?Iawai- 
ian,  are  my  sons  and  daughters,  each  of  them  calling  me 
father ;  and  the  children  of  the  latter  are  my  grandchil- 
dren, each  of  them  calling  me  grandfather. 

In  the  female  branch  my  sister's  children  are  my  sons 
and  daughters,  each  of  them  calling  me  father ;  and  their 
children  are  my  grandchildren,  each  of  them  calling  me 
grandfather.  With  myself  a  female,  the  relationships  of 
the  persons  above  named  are  the  same  in  both  branches, 
with  corresponding  changes  for  sex. 

The  husbands  and  wives  of  these  several  sons  and 
daughters  are  my  sons-in-law  and  daughters-in-law ;  the 
terms  being  used  in  common  gender,  and  having  the 
terms  for  male  and  female  added  to  each  respectively. 

Second  collateral  line.  In  the  male  branch  on  the  fa- 
ther's side  my  father's  brother  is  my  father,  and  calls  me 
his  son ;  his  children  are  my  brothers  and  sisters,  elder  or 
younger ;  their  children  arc  my  sons  and  daughters ;  and 
the  children  of  the  latter  are  my  grandchildren,  each  of 
them  in  the  preceding  and  succeeding  cases  applying  to 

I   lb.,  pp.   o25,   573. 


THE  CONSANGUINE  FAMILY  416 

me  the  proper  correlative.  ]\Iy  father's  sister  is  my 
mother;  her  children  are  my  brothers  and  sisters,  elder 
or  younger ;  their  children  are  my  sons  and  daughters ; 
and  the  children  of  the  latter  are  my  grandchildren. 

In  the  same  line  on  the  mother's  side  my  mother's 
brother  is  my  father ;  his  children  are  my  brothers  and 
sisters ;  their  children  are  my  sons  and  daughters ;  and 
the  children  of  the  latter  are  my  grandchildren,  ]My 
mother's  sister  is  my  mother ;  her  children  are  my  broth- 
ers and  sisters ;  their  children  are  my  sons  and  daughters ; 
and  the  children  of  the  latter  are  my  grandchildren.  The 
relationships  of  the  persons  named  in  all  the  branches  of 
this  and  the  succeeding  lines  are  the  same  with  myself 
a  female. 

The  wives  of  these  several  brothers,  ov/n  and  collateral, 
are  my  wives  as  well  as  theirs.  When  addressing  either 
one  of  them.  I  call  her  my  wife,  employing  the  usual  term 
to  express  that  connection.  The  luisbands  of  these  sev- 
eral women,  jointly  such  with  myself,  are  my  brothers- 
in-law.  \\'ith  myself  a  female  the  husbands  of  mj'-  several 
sisters,  own  and  collateral,  are  my  husbands  as  well  as 
theirs.  When  addressing  either  of  them,  I  use  the  com- 
mon term  for  husband.  The  wives  of  these  several  hus- 
bands, who  are  jointly  such  with  myself,  are  my  sisters- 
in-law. 

Third  collateral  line.  In  the  male  branch  of  this  line 
on  the  father's  side,  my  grandfather's  brother  is  my 
grandfather ;  his  children  are  my  fathers  and  mothers ; 
their  children  are  my  brothers  .  and  sisters,  elder  or 
younger ;  the  children  of  the  latter  are  my  sons  and 
daughters ;  and  their  children  are  my  grandchildren.  My 
grandfather's  sister  is  my  grandmother:  and  her  children 
and  descendants  follow  in  the  same  relationships  as  in  the 
last  case. 

In  the  same  line  on  the  mother's  side,  my  grandmo- 
ther's brother  is  my  grandfather;  his  sister  is  my  grand- 
mother; and  their  respective  children  and  descendants 
fall  into  the  same  categories  as  those  in  the  first  branch 
of  this  line. 

The  marriage  relationships  arc  the  same  in  this  as  in 


416  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

the  second  collateral  line,  thus  increasing  largelv  the 
number  united  in  the  bonds  of  marriage. 

As  far  as  consanguinei  can  be  traced  in  the  more 
remote  collateral  lines,  the  system,  which  is  all-embracing, 
is  the  same  in  its  classifications.  Thus,  my  great-grand- 
father in  the  fourth  collateral  line  is  my  grandfather ;  his 
son  is  my  grandfather  also;  the  son  of  the  latter  is  my 
father ;  his  son  is  my  brother,  elder  or  younger ;  and  his 
son  and  grandson  are  my  son  and  grandson. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  several  collateral  lines  are 
brought  into  and  merged  in  the  lineal  line,  ascending  as 
well  as  descending ;  so  that  the  ancestors  and  descendants 
of  my  collateral  brothers  and  sisters  become  mine  as  well 
as  theirs.  This  is  one  of  the  characteristics  of  the  classifi- 
catory  system.    None  of  the  kindred  are  lost. 

From  the  simplicity  of  the  system  it  may  be  seen  how 
readily  the  relationships  of  consanguinei  are  known  and 
recognized,  and  how  a  knowledge  of  them  is  preserved 
from  generation  to  generation.  A  single  rule  furnishes 
an  illustration :  the  children  of  brothers  are  themselves 
brothers  and  sisters ;  the  children  of  the  latter  are  broth- 
ers and  sisters ;  and  so  downward  indefinitely.  It  is  the 
same  with  the  children  and  descendants  of  sisters,  and  of 
brothers  and  sisters. 

All  the  members  of  each  grade  are  reduced  to  the  same 
level  in'  their  relationships,  without  regard  to  nearness  or 
remoteness  in  numerical  degrees ;  those  in  each  grade 
standing  to  Ego  in  an  identical  relationship.  It  follows, 
also,  that  knowledge  of  the  numerical  degrees  formed  an 
integral  part  of  the  Hawaiian  system,  without  which  the 
proper  grade  of  each  person  could  not  be  known.  The 
simple  and  distinctive  character  of  the  system  will  arrest 
attention,  pointing  with  such  directness  as  it  does,  to  the 
intermarriage  of  brothers  and  sisters,  own  and  collateral, 
in  a  group,  as  the  source  from  whence  it  sprung. 

Poverty  of  language  or  indifference  to  relationships 
exercised  no  influence  whatever  upon  the  formation  of 
the  system,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel. 

The  system,  as  here  detailed,  is  found  in  other  Polyne- 
sian  tribes   besides    the    Hawaiians   and   Rotumans,   as 


,     ''  THE   CONSANGUINE   FAMILY  41^ 

among  the  Marquesas  Islanders,  and  the  Maoris  of  New 
Zealand.  It  prevails,  also,  among  the  Samoans,  Kusaiens, 
and  King's  Mill  Islanders  of  Micronesia,'  and  without 
a  doubt  in  every  inhabited  island  of  the  Pacific,  except 
where  it  verges  upon  the  Turanian. 

From  this  system  the  antecedent  existence  of  the  con- 
sanguine family,  with  the  kind  of  marriage  appertaining 
thereto,  is  plainly  deducible.  Presumptively  it  is  a  natural 
and  real  system,  expressing  the  relationships  which  actu- 
ally existed  when  the  system  was  formed,  as  near  as  the 
parentage  of  children  could  be  known.  The  usages  with 
respect  to  marriage  which  then  prevailed  may  not  prevail 
at  the  present  time.  To  sustain  the  deduction  it  is  not 
necessary  that  they  should.  Systems  of  consanguinity, 
as  before  stated,  are  found  to  remain  substantially 
unchanged  and  in  full  vigor  long  after  the  marriage 
customs  in  which  they  originated  have  in  part  or  wholly 
passed  away.  The  small  number  of  independent  systems 
of  consanguinity  created  during  the  extended  period  of 
human  experience  is  sufficient  proof  of  their  permanence. 
They  are  found  not  to  change  except  in  connection  with 
great  epochs  of  progress.  For  the  purpose  of  explaining 
the  origin  of  the  Malayan  s\stem,  from  the  nature  of 
descents,  we  are  at  liberty  to  assume  the  antecedent  inter- 
marriage of  own  and  collateral  brothers  and  sisters  in  a 
group;  and  if  it  is  then  found  that  the  principal  rela- 
tionships recognized  are  those  that  w^ould  actually  exist 
under  this  form  of  marriage,  then  the  system  itself 
becomes  evidence  conclusive  of  the  existence  of  such 
marriages.  It  is  plainly  inferable  that  the  system  origi- 
nated in  plural  marriages  of  consanguinei,  including  own 
brothers  and  sisters ;  in  fact  commenced  with  the  inter- 
marriage of  the  latter,  and  gradually  enfolded  the  col- 
lateral brothers  and  sisters  as  the  range  of  the  conjugal 
system  widened.  In  course  of  time  the  evils  of  the  first 
form  of  marriage  came  to  be  perceived,  leading,  if  not  to 
its  direct  abolition,  to  a  preference  for  wives  beyond  this 
degree.     Among  the    Australians    it    was    permanently 

i"SyBtems  of  Consanguinity/*  etc.,  1.  c,  Table  iii,  pp.  542,  573. 


418  ANCIENT  SOCIETT?" 

abolished  by  the  organization  into  classes,  and  more  wide- 
ly among  the  Turanian  tribes  by  the  organization  into 
gentes.  It  is  impossible  to  explain  the  system  as  a  natu- 
ral growth  upon  any  other  hypothesis  than  the  one  named, 
since  this  form  of  marriage  alone  can  furnish  a  key  to 
its  interpretation.  In  the  consanguine  family,  thus  con- 
stituted, the  husbands  lived  in  polygyny,  and  the  wives  in 
polyandry,  which  are  seen  to  be  as  ancient  as  human 
society.  Such  a  family  was  neither  unnatural  nor  remark- 
able. It  would  be  difficult  to  show  any  other  possible 
beginning  of  the  family  in  the  primitive  period.  Its  long 
continuance  in  a  partial  form  among  the  tribes  of  man- 
kind is  the  greater  cause  for  surprise  ;  for  all  traces  of 
it  had  not  disappeared  among  the  Hawaiians  at  the  epoch 
of  their  discovery. 

The  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  Malayan  system 
given  in  this  chapter,  and  of  the  Turanian  and  Ganowan- 
ian  given  in  the  next,  have  been  questioned  and  denied 
by  Mr.  John  F.  McLennan,  author  of  ''Primitive  Mar- 
riage." I  see  no  occasion,  however,  to  modify  the  views 
herein  presented,  which  are  the  same  substantially  as 
those  given  in  "Systems  of  Consanguinity,"  etc.  But  I 
ask  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  interpretation  here 
repeated,  and  to  a  note  at  the  end  of  Chapter  VI,  in  which 
Mr.  McLennan's  objections  are  considered. 

If  the  recognized  relationships  in  the  Malayan  system 
are  now  tested  by  this  form  of  marriage,  it  will  be  found 
that  they  rest  upon  the  intermarriage  of  own  and  col- 
lateral brothers  and  sisters  in  a  group. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  relationships  which 
grow  out  of  the  family  organization  are  of  two  kinds : 
those  of  blood  determined  by  descents,  and  those  of  affin- 
ity determined  by  marriage.  Since  in  the  consanguine 
family  there  are  two  distinct  groups  of  persons,  one  of 
fathers  and  one  of  mothers;  the  affiliation  of  the  children 
to  both  groups  would  be  so  strong  that  the  distinction 
between  relationships  by  blood  and  by  affinity  would  not 
be  recognized'  in  the  system  in  every  case. 

I.  All  the  children  of  mv  several  brothers,  myself  a 
male,  are  my  sons  and  daughters. 


THE  CONSANGUINE  FAMILY  419 

Reason :  Speaking  as  a  Hawaiian,  all  the  wives  of  my 
several  brothers  are  my  wives  as  well  as  theirs.  As  it 
would  be  impossible  for  me  to  distinguish  my  own  chil- 
dren from  those  of  my  brothers,  if  I  call  any  one  my 
child,  I  must  call  them  all  my  children.  One  is  as  likely 
to  be  mine  as  another. 

II.  All  the  grandchildren  of  my  several  brothers  are 
my  grandchildren. 

Reason :  They  are  the  children  of  my  sons  and  daugh- 
ters. 

III,  With  myself  a  female  the  fqregoing  relationships 
are  the  same. 

This  is  purely  a  question  of  relationship  by  marriage. 
My  several  brothers  being  my  husbands,  their  children  by 
other  wives  would  be  my  step-children,  which  relation- 
ship being  unrecognized,  they  naturally  fall  into  the  cate- 
gory of  my  sons  and  daughters.  Otherwise  they  would 
pass  without  the  system.  Among  ourselves  a  step-mother 
is  called  mother,  and  a  step-son  a  son. 

IV.  All  the  children  of  my  several  sisters,  own  and 
collateral,  myself  a  male,  are  my  sons  and  daughters. 

Reason :  All  my  sisters  are  my  wives,  as  well  as  the 
wives  of  my  several  brothers, 

V,  All  the  grandchildren  of  my  several  sisters  are  my 
grandchildren. 

Reason :  They  are  the  children  of  my  sons  and  daugh- 
ters, 

VL  All  the  children  of  my  several  sisters,  myself  a 
female,  are  my  sons  and  daughters. 

Reason :  The  husbands  of  my  sisters  are  my  husbands 
as  well  as  theirs.  This  difference,  however,  exists:  I 
can  distinguish  my  own  children  from  those  of  my  sisters, 
to  the  latter  of  whom  I  am  a  step-mother.  But  since 
this  relationship  is  not  discriminated,  they  fall  into  the 
category  of  my  sons  and  daughters.  Otherwise  they 
would  fall  without  the  system, 

VII.  All  the  children  of  several  own  )rothers  are 
brothers  and  sisters  to  each  other. 

Reason :  These  brothers  are  the  husbands  of  all  the 
mothers  of  these  children.    The  children  can  distinguish 


420  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

their  own  mothers,  but  not  their  fathers,  wherefore,  as 
to  the  former,  a  part  are  own  brothers  and  sisters,  and 
step-brothers  and  step-sisters  to  the  remainder ;  but  as 
to  the  latter,  they  are  probable  brothers  and  sisters.  For 
these  reasons  they  naturally  fall  into  this  category. 

VIII.  The  children  of  these  brothers  and  sisters  are 
also  brothers  and  sisters  to  each  other ;  the  children  of 
the  latter  are  brothers  and  sisters  again,  and  this  rela- 
tionship continues  downward  among  their  descendants 
indefinitely.  It  is  precisely  the  same  with  the  children 
and  descendants  of  several  own  sisters,  and  of  several 
brothers  and  sisters.  An  infinite  series  is  thus  created, 
which  is  a  fundamental  part  of  the  system.  To  account 
for  this  series  it  must  be  further  assumed  that  the  mar- 
riage relation  extended  wherever  the  relationship  of 
brother  and  sister  was  recognized  to  exist;  each  brother 
having  as  many  wnves  as  he  had  sisters,  own  or  collateral, 
and  each  sister  having  as  many  husbands  as  she  had 
brothers,  own  or  collateral.  Marriage  and  the  family 
seem  to  form  in  the  grade  or  category,  and  to  be  coex- 
tensive with  it.  Such  apparently  was  the  beginning  of 
that  stupendous  conjugal  system  which  has  before  been 
a  number  of  times  adverted  to. 

IX.  All  the  brothers  of  my  father  are  my  fathers ;  and 
all  the  sisters  of  my  mother  are  my  mothers. 

Reasons,  as  in  I,  III,  and  VI. 

X.  All  the  brothers  of  my  mother  are  my  fathers. 
Reason :  They  are  my  mother's  husbands. 

XI.  All  the  sisters  of  my  mother  are  my  mothers. 
Reasons,  as  in  VI. 

XII.  All  the  children  of  my  collateral  brothers  and  sis- 
ters are,  without  distinction,  my  sons  and  daughters. 

Reasons,  as  in  I,  III,  IV,  VI. 

XIII.  All  the  children  of  the  latter  arc  my  grandchil- 
dren. 

Reasons.  ?s  in  II. 

XIV.  All  the  brothers  and  sisters  of  my  grandfather 
and  grandmother,  on  the  father's  side  and  on  the  mother's 
side,  are  my  grandfathers  and  grandmothers. 


THE  CONSANGUINE  FAMILY  421 

keason :  They  are  the  fathers  and  mothers  of  my  father 
and  mother. 

Every  relationship  recognized  under  the  system  is  thus 
explaijied  from  the  nature  of  the  consanguine  family, 
founded  upon  the  intermarriage  of  brothers  and  sisters, 
own  and  collateral,  in  a  group.  Relationships  on  the 
father's  side  are  followed  as  near  as  the  parentage  of  chil- 
dren could  be  known,  probable  fathers  being  treated  as 
actual  fathers.  Relationships  on  the  mother's  side  are 
determined  by  the  principle  of  affinity,  step-children  being 
regarded  as  actual  children. 

Turning  next  to  the  marriage  relationships,  confirma- 
tory results  are  obtained,  as  the  following  table  will 
show : 

ToNGAN  Hawaiian. 

Male  speaking'. 

My  Brother's  Wife,         Unoho,  My  Wife.  Waheena,  My  Wife. 

My  Wife's  Sister,  Unoho,  My  Wife.  Waheena,  My  Wife. 

Female  speaking. 
My  Husband's  Brother, Unoho,  My  Husband.  Kane,    My  liusband. 

Male  speaking, 
^^  ^Son^s'w^f'^*^^'^'^  [  Unoho,  My  Wife.    Waheena.  My  Wife. 

My  Mother's  Sister's      'unoho,  My  Wife.    Waheena,  My  Wife. 

Son  s  Wife,  ) 

Female  speaking. 

My  Father's  Brother's  I  Unoho,  My  Husband.  Kalkoeka,  My  Bro-Io-law. 

Daughter  s  Husband,  I             '      -'  '      ■' 

My   Mother's   Sister's  »  Unolio,  My  Husband.  Kailtoeka,  My  Bro.-in-law. 

Daughter  s  Husband,  )            '     ■'  ' 

Wherever  the  relationship  of  wife  is  found  in  the  collat- 
eral line,  that  of  husband  must  be  recognized  in  the  lineal, 
and  conversely.^  When  this  system  of  consanguinity  and 
affinity  first  came  into  use  the  relationships,  which  are 
still  preserved,  could  have  been  none  other  than  those 
which  actually  existed,  whatever  may  have  afterwards 
occurred  in  marriage  usages. 

From  the  evidence  embodied  in  this  system  of  consan- 
guinity the    deduction  is    made    that    the    consanguine 

I  Among  the  Kafirs  of  South  Africa,  the  wife  of  my  father's 
brother's  son,  of  my  father's  sister's  son,  of  my  mother's 
brother's  son,  and  of  my  mother's  sister's  son,  are  all  alike  my 
wives,  as  well  as  theirs,  as  appears  by  their  system  of  con- 
sanguinity. 


4$t  ANCIENT  SOCIETf 

family,  as  defined,  existed  among  the  ancestors  of  the 
Polynesian  tribes  when  the  system  was  formed.  Such  a 
form  of  the  family  is  necessary  to  render  an  interpreta- 
tion of  the  system  possible.  Moreover,  it  furnishes  an 
interpretation  of  every  relationship  with  reasonable 
exactness. 

The  following  observation  of  Mr.  Oscar  Peschel  is 
deserving  of  attention :  "That  at  any  time  and  in  any 
place  the  children  of  the  same  mother  have  propagated 
themselves  sexually,  for  any  long  period,  has  been  rend- 
ered especially  incredible,  since  it  has  been  established 
that  even  in  the  case  of  organisms  devoid  of  blood,  such 
as  the  plants,  reciprocal  fertilization  of  the  descendants 
of  the  same  parents  is  to  a  great  extent  impossible."*  It 
must  be  remembered  that  the  consanguine  group  united 
in  the  marriage  relation  was  not  restricted  to  own  broth- 
ers and  sisters :  but  it  included  collateral  brothers  and  sis- 
ters as  well.  The  larger  the  group  recognizing  the  mar- 
riage relation,  the  less  the  evil  of  close  interbreeding. 

From  general  considerations  the  ancient  existence  of 
such  a  family  was  probable.  The  natural  and  necessary 
relations  of  the  consanguine  family  to  the  punaluan,  of 
the  punaluan  to  the  syndyasmian,  and  of  the  syndyasmian 
to  the  monogamian,  each  presupposing  its  predecessor, 
lead  directly  to  this  conclusion.  They  stand  to  each  other 
in  a  logical  sequence,  and  together  stretch  across  several 
ethnical  periods  from  savagery  to  civilization. 

In  like  manner  the  three  great  systems  of  consanguin- 
ity, which  are  connected  with  the  three  radical  forms  of 
the  family,  stand  to  each  other  in  a  similarly  connected 
series,  running  parallel  with  the  former,  and  indicating 
not  less  plainly  a  similar  line  of  human  progress  from 
savagery  to  civilization.  There  are  reasons  for  conchul- 
ing  that  the  remote  ancestors  of  the  Aryan,  Semitic,  and 
Uralian  families  possessed  a  system  identical  with  the 
Malayan  when  in  the  savage  state,  which  was  finally  mod- 
ified into  the  Turanian  after  the  establishment  of  the 
gentile    organization,    and    then    overthrown    when    the 

I    "Races   of  Man,"  Appleton's  ed.   1876,  p.  232. 


THE  CONSANGUINE  FAMILY  428 

monogamian  family  appeared,  introducing  the  Aryan 
system  of  consanguinity. 

Notwithstanding  the  high  character  of  the  evidence 
given,  there  is  still  other  evidence  of  the  ancient  existence 
of  the  consanguine  family  among  the  Hawaiians  which 
should  not  be  overlooked. 

Its  antecedent  existence  is  rendered  probably  by  the 
condition  of  society  in  the  Sandwich  Islands  when  it  first 
became  thoroughly  known.  At  the  time  the  American 
missions  were  established  upon  these  Islands  (1820),  a 
state  of  society  was  found  which  appalled  the  mission- 
aries. The  relations  of  the  sexes  and  their  marriage  cus- 
toms exited  their  chief  astonishment.  They  were  sud- 
denly introduced  to  a  phase  of  ancient  society  where  the 
monogamian  family  was  unknown,  where  the  syndyas- 
mian  family  was  unknown ;  but  in  the  place  of  these,  and 
without  understanding  the  organism,  they  found  the 
punaluan  family,  with  own  brothers  and  sisters  not  entire- 
ly excluded,  in  which  the  males  were  living  in  polygyny, 
and  the  females  in  polyandry.  It  seemed  to  them  that 
they  had  discovered  the  lowest  level  of  human  degrada- 
tion, not  to  say  of  depravity.  But  the  innocent  Hawai- 
ians, who  had  not  been  able  to  advance  themselves  out  of 
savagery,  were  living,  no  doubt  respectably  and  modestly 
for  savages,  under  customs  and  usages  which  to  them  had 
the  force  of  laws.  It  is  probable  that  they  were  living 
as  virtuously  in  their  faithful  observance,  as  these  excel- 
lent missionaries  were  in  the  performance  of  their  own. 
The  shock  the  latter  experienced  from  their  discoveries 
expresses  the  profoundness  of  the  expanse  which  separ- 
ates civilized  from  savage  man.  The  high  moral  sense 
and  refined  sensibilities,  which  had  been  a  growth  of  the 
ages,  were  brought  face  to  face  with  the  feeble  moral 
sense  and  the  coarse  sensibilities  of  a  savage  man  of  all 
these  periods  ago.  As  a  contrast  it  was  total  and  com- 
plete. The  Rev.  Hiram  Bingham,  one  of  these  veteran 
missionaries,  has  given  us  an  excellent  history  of  the 
Sandwich  Islands,  founded  upon  original  investigations, 
in  which  he  pictures  the  people  as  practicing  the  sum  of 
human  abominations.     "Polygamy,  implying  plurality  of 


424  AKOTRXT  SOCIETY 

husbands  and  wives,"  he  observes,  "fornication,  adultery, 
incest,  infant  murder,  desertion  of  husband  and  wives, 
parents  and  children ;  sorcery,  covetousness,  and  oppres- 
sion extensively  prevailed,  and  seem  hardly  to  have  been 
forbidden  by  their  religion."^  Punaluan  marriage  and  the 
punaluan  family  dispose  of  the  principal  charges  in  this 
grave  indictment,  and  leave  the  Hawaiians  a  chance  at  a 
moral  character.  The  existence  of  morality,  even  among 
savages,  must  be  recognized,  although  low  in  type ;  for 
there  never  could  have  been  a  time  in  human  experience 
when  the  principle  of  morality  did  not  exist.  Wakea,  the 
eponymous  ancestor  of  the  Hawaiians,  according  to  Mr. 
Bingham,  is  said  to  have  married  his  eldest  daughter.  In 
the  time  of  these  missionaries  brothers  and  sisters  mar- 
ried without  reproach.  "The  union  of  brother  and  sister 
in  the  highest  ranks,"  he  further  remarks,  "became 
fashionable,  and  continued  until  the  revealed  will  of  God 
was  made  known  to  them."  *  It  is  not  singular  that  the 
intermarriage  of  brothers  and  sisters  should  have  sur- 
vived from  the  consanguine  family  into  the  punaluan  in 
some  cases,  in  the  Sandwich  Islands,  because  the  people 
had  not  attained  to  the  gentile  organization,  and  because 
the  punaluan  family  was  a  growth  out  of  the  consanguine 
not  yet  entirely  consummated.  Although  the  family  was 
substantially  punaluan,  the  system  of  consanguinity  re- 
mained unchanged,  as  it  came  in  with  the  consanguine 
family,  with  the  exception  of  certain  marriage  relation- 
ships. 

It  is  not  probable  that  the  actual  family,  among  the 
Hawaiians,  was  as  large  as  the  group  united  in  the  mar- 
riage relation.  Necessity  would  compel  its  subdivision 
into  smaller  groups  for  the  procurement  of  subsistence, 
and  for  mutual  protection ;  but  each  smaller  family  would 
be  a  miniature  of  the  group.  It  is  not  improbable  that 
individuals  passed  at  pleasure  from  one  of  these  sub- 
divisions into  another  in  the  punaluan  as  well  as  con- 
sanguine family,  giving  rise  to  that  apparent  desertion  by 

I   Bingham's   "Sandwich   Islands,"   Hartford   ed.,    1847.   p.   21. 
a  lb.,  p.   23. 


THE   CON^!AKGUlNE  FAMILY  435 

husbands  and  wives  of  each  other,  and  by  parents  of  their 
children,  mentioned  by  Mr.  Bingham.  Communism  in 
living-  must,  of  necessity,  have  prevailed  both  in  the  con- 
sanguine and  in  the  punaluan  family,  because  it  was  a 
requirement  of  their  condition.  It  still  prevails  generally 
among  savage  and  barbarous  tribes. 

A  brief  reference  should  be  made  to  the  '"Xine  Grades 
of  Relations  of  the  Chinese."  An  ancient  Chinese  author 
remarks  as  follows :  "All  men  born  into  the  world  have 
nine  ranks  of  relations.  My  own  generation  is  one  grade, 
my  father's  is  one.  that  of  my  grandfather  is  one,  that 
of  my  grandfather's  father  is  one,  and  that  of  my  grand- 
father's grandfather  is  one;  thus,  above  me  are  four 
grades:  My  son's  generation  is  one,  and  that  of  my 
grandson's  is  one,  that  of  my  grandson's  son  is  one, 
and  that  of  my  grandson's  grandson  is  one ;  thus,  be- 
low me  are  four  grades ;  including  myself  in  the  estimate, 
there  are,  in  all  nine  grades.  These  are  brethren,  and 
although  each  grade  belongs  to  a  different  house  or 
family,  yet  they  are  all  my  relations,  and  these  are  the 
nine  grades  of  relations." 

"The  degrees  of  kindred  in  a  family  are  like  the  stream- 
lets of  a  fountain,  or  the  branches  of  a  tree ;  although  the 
streams  differ  in  being  more  or  less  remote,  and  the 
branches  in  being  more  or  less  near,  yet  there  is  but  one 
trunk  and  one  fountain  head.''^ 

The  Hawaiian  system  of  consanguinity  realizes  the 
nine  grades  of  relations  (conceiving  them  reduced  to  five 
by  striking  off  the  two  upper  and  the  two  lower  mem- 
bers) more  perfectly  than  that  of  the  Chinese  at  the 
present  time."  While  the  latter  has  changed  through  the 
introduction  of  Turanian  elements,  and  still  more  through 
special  addition  to  distinguish  the  several  collateral  lines, 
the  former  has  held,  pure  and  simple,  to  the  primary 
grades  which  presumptively  were  all  the  Chinese  pos- 
sessed originally.  Tt  is  evident  that  consanguinei,  in  the 
Chinese  as  in  the  Hawaiian,  are  generalized   into  cate- 


1  "Systems  of   Consanguinity,"  etc.,  p.   415. 

2  lb.,  p.  432,  where  the  Chinese  system  is  presented  in  full. 


426  AKCIENT  SOCIETY 

gories  by  generations ;  all  collaterals  of  the  same  grade 
being  brothers  and  sisters  to  each  other.  Moreover, 
marriage  and  the  family  are  conceived  as  forming  within 
the  grade,  and  confined,  so  far  as  husbands  and  wives 
are  concerned,  within  its  limits.  As  explained  by  the 
Hawaiian  categories  it  is  perfectly  intelligible.  At  the 
same  time  it  indicates  an  anterior  condition  among  the 
remote  ancestors  of  the  Chinese,  of  which  this  fragment 
preserves  a  knowledge,  precisely  analogous  to  that 
reflected  by  the  Hawaiian.  In  other  words,  it  indicated 
the  presence  of  the  punaluan  family  when  these  grades 
were  formed,  of  which  the  consanguine  was  a  necessary 
predecessor. 

In  the  "Timaeus"  of  Plato  there  is  a  suggestive  recogni- 
tion of  the  same  five  primary  grades  of  relations.  All 
consanguinei  in  the  Ideal  Republic  were  to  fall  into  five 
categories,  in  which  the  women  were  to  be  in  common  as 
wives,  and  the  children  in  common  as  to  parents.  "But 
how  about  the  procreation  of  children?"  Socrates  savs 
to  Timaeus.  "This,  perhaps,  you  easily  remember,  on 
account  of  the  novelty  of  the  proposal ;  for  we  ordered 
that  marriage  unions  and  children  should  be  in  common 
to  all  persons  whatsoever,  special  care  being  taken  also 
that  no  one  should  be  able  to  distinguish  his  own  chil- 
dren individually,  but  all  consider  all  their  kindred' 
regarding  those  of  an  equal  age,  and  in  the  prime  of  life» 
as  their  brothers  and  sisters,  those  prior  to  them,  and  yet 
further  back  as  their  parents  and  grandsires,  and  those 
below  them,  as  their  children  and  grandchildren.'"  Plato 
undoubtedly  was  familiar  with  Hellenic  and  Pelasgian 
traditions  not  known  to  us,  which  reached  far  back  into 
the  period  of  barbarism,  and  revealed  traces  of  a  still 
earlier  condition  of  the  Grecian  tribes.  His  ideal  family 
may  have  been  derived  from  these  delineations,  a  sup- 
position far  more  probable  than  that  it  was  a  philosoph- 
ical deduction.  It  will  be  noticed  that  his  five  grades  of 
relations  are  precisely  the  same  as  the  Hawaiian ;  that  the 
family  was  to  form  in  each  grade  where  the  relationship 

I  "Tlmaeua,"  c.   II,  Davis's  trans. 


THE  CONSANGUINE   FAMILY  42t 

\Va£  that  of  brothers  and  sisters ;  and  that  husbands  and 
wives  were  to  be  in  common  in  the  group. 

Finally,  it  will  be  perceived  that  the  state  of  society 
indicated  by  the  consanguine  family  points  with  logical 
directness  to  an  anterior  condition  of  promiscuous  inter- 
course. There  seems  to  be  no  escape  from  this  conclu- 
sion, although  questioned  by  so  eminent  a  writer  as  Mr. 
Darwin.*  It  is  not  probable  that  promiscuity  in  the  prim- 
itive period  was  long  continued  even  in  the  horde; 
because  the  latter  would  break  up  into  smaller  groups  for 
subsistence,  and  fall  into  consanguine  families.  The 
most  that  can  safely  be  claimed  upon  this  difficult  ques- 
tion is,  that  the  consanguine  family  was  the  first  organized 
form  of  society,  and  that  it  was  necessarily  an  improve- 
ment upon  the  previous  unorganized  state,  whatever  that 
state  may  have  been.  It  found  mankind  at  the  bottom  of 
the  scale,  from  which,  as  a  starting  point,  and  the  lowest 
known,  we  may  take  up  the  history  of  human  progress, 
and  trace  it  through  the  growth  of  domestic  institutions, 
inventions,  and  discoveries,  from  savagery  to  civilization. 
By  no  chain  of  events  can  it  be  shown  more  conspicuously 
than  in  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  the  family  through 
successive  forms.  With  the  existence  of  the  consanguine 
family  established,  of  which  the  proofs  adduced  seem  to 
be  sufficient,  the  remaining  families  are  easily  demon- 
strated. 


I  "Descent  of  Man,"  II,  S«0. 


428 


ANCIENT  SOGlKTY 


5^    « 


1 


«:  a 

ll 


^  w  t: 

71  i 


.ill. 


eg  Vrt  *>'H 


§1 


wn.Atn 


itvt 


p  S:  I'  s,  s, 
i  -a  ^  -3  -5 


-a.:  I  s  s  ;  5 


"•»•  'JS^iJ!^    •-.-  ■"* 


n- 


«  *  -'        >  _ ..     .. 

e  -ssaass  saiiiji  6 


^-■cjziZ^ 


■at         ■    §:  .  :  v^^JiSOJ     JS^ 


<«     2     g 

f     *?     V 

2      S «  8  n  8 «  C  «              a              a 

c  5  «  «  ««  "Tn  ■«  in  '«  _  o  -          ■»>       «       fi 

•*?««,  u  -■  :i                  «  c  *  « .--  c  *  •-  t>  c  u  I 


<•  S  a  ii 


a.a 


's'lisss  I  a 


.... eo : 


>3  O  O  O  tc  "3  ^  "  J;  b  -1(  b  0-" 
trf!a:(3l3":3:3--f5i313  0it3  >3  2 


lis- 


::>«>« 


THE  CONSANGUINE  FAMILY 


429 


%: 


■s§= 


It  §1,  , 


O  4  O  (« 


=    1  t 


6Ji 

J    6 


iIlM 


■a  o 

I  J  1=  li 


xCj:      •r'T     <-j:L.j3      — . 


;:  :  .-jiiwi^:  i 


iiiii  E 


J=^<—  ^ 


Ti  J. 

•A    9 


4i 


'^^s,^^acs.csre.».eju 


430 


ANCIENT  SOCIETT 


itx«:::>t< 


i 


Jill , .  W  liliii . .  W  iiiJi . .  l\im 
I  ilim  !  1  hill- 1  li'ki 


F        1 F        I  £ 
V  liiljm  I-  r  Oil  I 


i..ihrii|«i|||?}i.|.  j... 

Il l\ -j 

iai}i:ii:iiii>;:>:i:iiiaiit«tiiiiiat 


THE  CONSANGUINE  FAMILY 
^1^  ^ll  '11  ii 

.jh.-.     Ma     jILi    JJ 
li  pi  III  pi  ill  ill  HI . 

3"2' f B   Is-rf  I'^gl-lft-rf  I'fl.-flB^  T-8e|l5-a:^ 


481 


l^il 


:3:3:::ii:tTi::3:ii>t: 


i:3i:33>>-<9i      11 


5? 


■,  ^A  ^ 


11 


illl^ri'-  llll'^l^  il^l=^1^  •  Il4| 


J.. I 


4 


i:33:3>c::t:< 


t  t  t  : 


umm  m 


:;)t;i:33>3i:t3(ttii 


9      9  ^ 


hi 


i^Hhi^  i^^iHr^'tl  iih^^  .?! 


a3 


It 


/    fnn?2'5'J?5?S'?*?!?r5??r?l?!'rr5r?S'5^?4"8l'flWf 


m 


ANCIENT  SOCIETf 


»|      u 


•11  -i^il 


CHAPTER  III 

THE    PUXALUAN    FAMILY 

The  Punaluan  family  has  existed  in  Europe,  Asia,  and 
America  within  the  historical  period,  and  in  Polynesia 
within  the  present  century.  With  a  wide  prevalence  in 
the  tribes  of  mankind  in  the  Status  of  Savagery,  it  re- 
mained in  some  instances  among  tribes  who  had  advanced 
into  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  and  in  one  case,  that 
of  the  Britons,  among  tribes  who  had  attained  the  Middle 
Status. 

In  the  course  of  human  progress  it  followed  the  con- 
sanguine family,  upon  which  it  supervened,  and  of  which 
it  was  a  modification.  The  transition  from  one  into  the 
other  was  produced  by  the  gradual  exclusion  of  own 
brothers  and  sisters  from  the  marriage  relation,  the  evils 
of  which  could  not  forever  escape  human  observation. 
It  may  be  impossible  to  recover  the  events  which  led  to 
deliverance ;  but  we  are  not  without  some  evidence  tend- 
ing to  show  how  it  occurred.  Although  the  facts  from 
which  these  conclusions  are  drawn  are  of  a  dreary  and 
forbidding  character,  they  will  not  surrender  the  knowl- 
edge they  contain  without  a  patient  as  well  as  careful 
examination. 

Given  the  consanguine  family,  which  involved  own 
brothers  and  sisters  and  also  collateral  brothers  and  sis- 
ters in  the  marriage  relation,  and  it  was  only  necessary 
to  exclude  the  former  from  the  group,  and  retain  the  lat- 
ter, to  change  the  consanguine  into  the  punaluan  family. 
To  effect  the  exclusion  of  the  one  class  and  the  retention 
of  the  other  was  a  difficult  process,  because  it  involved  a 

433 


434  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

radical  change  in  the  composition  of  the  family,  not  to 
say  in  the  ancient  plan  of  domestic  life.  It  also  required 
the  surrender  of  a  privilege  which  savages  would  be  slow 
to  make.  Commencing,  it  may  be  supposed,  in  isolated 
cases,  and  with  a  slow  recognition  of  its  advantages,  it 
remained  an  experiment  through  immense  expanses  of 
time ;  introduced  partially  at  first,  then  becoming  general, 
and  finally  universal  among  the  advancing  tribes,  still  in 
savagery,  among  whom  the  movement  originated.  It 
affords  a  good  illustration  of  the  operation  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  natural  selection. 

The  significance  of  the  Australian  class  system  presents 
itself  anew  in  this  connection.  It  is  evident  from  the 
manner  in  which  the  classes  were  formed,  and  from  the 
rule  with  respect  to  marriage  and  descents,  that  their 
primary  object  was  to  exclude  own  brothers  and  sisters 
from  the  marriage  relation,  while  the  collateral  brothers 
and  sisters  were  retained  in  that  relation.  The  former 
object  is  impressed  upon  the  classes  by  an  external  law; 
but  the  latter,  w^hich  is  not  apparent  on  the  face  of  the 
organization,  is  made  evident  by  tracing  their  descents.' 
It  is  thus  found  that  first,  second,  and  more  remote  cous- 
ins, who  are  collateral  brothers  and  sisters  under  their 
system  of  consanguinity,  are  brought  perpetually  back  into 
the  marriage  relation,  while  own  brothers  and  sisters 
are  excluded.  The  number  of  persons  in  the  Australian 
punahian  group  is  greater  than  in  the  Hawaiian,  and 
its  composition  is  slightly  dififerent ;  but  the  remarkable 
fact  remains  in  both  cases,  that  the  brotherhood  of  the 
husbands  formed  the  basis  of  the  marriage  relation  ii7 
one  group,  and  the  sisterhood  of  the  wives  the  basis  in 
the  other.  This  diflference,  however,  existed  with  respect 
to  the  Hawaiians,  that  it  does  not  appear  as  yet  that  there 
were  anv  classes  among  them  between  whom  marriages 
must  occur.     vSince  the  Australian  classes  gave  birth  to 

1  The  Ippals  and  Kapotas  nrn  mariioil  in  a  pmup.  Tppal  be- 
gpts  Murri,  and  Murri  in  turn  1iof?cts  Tppai;  in  Hko  manner  Ka- 
pota  ho^rts  Mata,  and  Mata  in  tnrn  bopots  Knpota;  so  tbat  thf> 
grandohildron  of  Tppai  nnd  Kapota  nro  lliemsolvps  Ippais  and 
Kapotas,  as  wpH  as  mUatpral  brothers  and  sisters:  and  as  such 
j»,re   born   luisbands   and   wives. 


THE  PUNALUAN  FAMILY  48{^ 

the  punaluan  group,  which  contained  the  germ  of  the 
gens,  it  suggests  the  probabihty  that  this  organization 
into  classes  upon  sex  once  prevailed  among  all  the  tribes 
of  mankind  who  afterwards  fell  under  the  gentile  organ- 
ization. It  would  not  be  surprising  if  the  Hawaiians,  at 
some  anterior  period,  were  organized  in  such  classes. 

Remarkable  as  it  may  seem,  three  of  the  most  im- 
portant and  most  wide-spread  institutions  of  mankind, 
namely,  the  punaluan  family,  the  organization  into  gentes, 
and  the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity,  root  them- 
selves in  an  anterior  organization  analogous  to  the  puna- 
luan group,  in  which  the  germ  of  each  is  found.  Some 
evidence  of  the  truth  of  this  proposition  will  appear  in 
the  discussion  of  tliis  family. 

As  punaluan  marriage  gave  the  punaluan  family,  the 
latter  would  give  the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity, 
as  soon  as  the  existing  system  was  reformed  so  as  to 
express  the  relationships  as  they  actually  existed  in  this 
family.  But  something  more  than  the  punaluan  group 
was  needed  to  produce  this  result,  namely,  the  organiza- 
tion into  gentes,  which  permanently  excluded  brothers 
and  sisters  from  the  marriage  relation  by  an  organic  law, 
who  before  that,  must  have  been  frequently  involved  in 
that  relation.  When  this  exclusion  was  made  complete 
it  would  work  a  change  in  all  these  relationships  which 
depended  upon  these  marriages ;  and  when  the  system  of 
consanguinity  was  made  to  conform  to  the  new  state  of 
these  relationships,  the  Turanian  system  would  supervene 
upon  the  Malayan.  The  Hawaii'-.no  had  the  punaluan 
family,  but  neither  the  organization  into  gentes  nor  the 
Turanian  system  of  consanguinity.  Their  retention  of 
the  old  system  of  the  consanguine  family  leads  to  a  sus- 
picion, confirmed  by  the  statements  of  ^fr.  Bingham,  that 
own  brothers  and  sisters  were  frequently  involved  in  the 
punaluan  group,  thus  rendering  a  reformation  of  the  old 
system  of  consanguinity  impossible.  Whether  the  pun- 
aluan group  of  the  Hawaiian  type  can  claim  an  equal 
antiquity  with  the  Australian  classes  is  questionable,  since 
the  latter  is  more  archaic  than  any  other  known  constitu- 
tion of  society.     But  the  existence  of  a  punaluan  group 


436  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

of  one  or  the  other  type  was  essential  to  the  birth  of  the 
gentes,  as  the  latter  were  essential  to  the  production  of 
the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity.  The  three  insti- 
tutions will  be  considered  separately. 

I.  The  Punaliian  Family. 

In  rare  instances  a  custom  has  been  discovered  in  a 
concrete  form  usable  as  a  key  to  unlock  some  of  the 
mysteries  of  ancient  society,  and  explain  what  before 
could  only  be  understood  imperfectly.  Such  a  custom  is 
rhe  Piinalua  of  the  Hawaiians.  In  i860  Judge  Lorin 
Andrews,  of  Honolulu,  in  a  letter  accompanying  a  sched- 
ule of  the  Hawaiian  system  of  consanguinity,  commented 
upon  one  of  the  Hawaiian  terms  of  relationship  as  fol- 
lows :  "The  relationship  of  piinalua.  is  rather  amphib- 
ious. It  arose  from  the  fact  that  two  or  more  brothers 
with  their  wives,  or  two  or  more  sisters  w^ith  their  hus- 
bands, were  inclined  to  possess  each  other  in  common ; 
but  the  modern  use  of  the  word  is  that  of  dear  friend,  or 
intimate  companion."  That  which  Judge  Andrews  says 
they  w^ere  inclined  to  do,  and  which  ma3^  then  have  been 
a  declining  practice,  their  system  of  consanguinity  proves 
to  have  been  once  universal  among  them.  The  Rev, 
Artemus  Bishop,  lately  deceased,  one  of  the  oldest  mis- 
sionaries in  these  Islands,  sent  to  the  author  the  same  year, 
with  a  similar  schedule,  the  following  statement  upon 
the  same  subject :  "This  confusion  of  relationships  is 
the  result  of  the  ancient  custom  among  relatives  of  the 
living  together  of  husbands  and  wives  in  common."  In 
a  previous  chapter  the  remark  of  Mr,  Bingham  was 
quoted  that  the  polygamy  of  which  he  was  writing,  "im- 
plied a  plurality  of  husbands  and  wives."  The  same  fact 
is  reiterated  by  Dr.  Bartlett:  "The  natives  had  hardly 
more  modesty  or  shame  than  so  many  animals.  Husbands 
had  many  wives,  and  wives  many  husbands,  and  ex- 
changed with  each  other  at  pleasure."'  The  form  of  mar- 
riage which  they  found  created  a  punaluan    group,    in 

1  "Historical    Sketch    of    tho    Missions,    etc.,    in     the    Sandwich 
Islands,"  etc.,  p.  5. 


THE  PUNALUAN  family  437 

which  the  husbands  and  wives  were  jointly  intermarried 
in  the  group.  Each  of  these  groups,  including  the  chil- 
dren of  the  marriages,  was  a  punaluan  family ;  for  one 
consisted  of  several  brothers  and  their  wives,  and  the 
other  of  several  sisters  with  their  husbands. 

If  we  now  turn  to  the  Hawaiian  system  of  consanguin- 
ity, in  the  Table,  it  will  be  found  that  a  man  calls  his 
wife's  sister  his  wife.  All  the  sisters  of  his  wife,  own  as 
well  as  collateral,  are  also  his  wives.  But  the  husband 
of  his  wife's  sister  he  calls  punalua,  i.  e.,  his  intimate 
companion;  and  all  the  husbands  of  the  several  sisters 
of  his  wife  the  same.  They  were  jointly  intermarried 
in  the  group.  These  husbands  w'ere  not,  probably,  broth- 
ers ;  if  they  were,  the  blood  relationship  would  naturally 
have  prevailed  over  the  affineal ;  but  their  wives  were  sis- 
ters, own  and  collateral.  In  this  case  the  sisterhood  of 
the  wives  was  the  basis  upon  which  the  group  was  form- 
ed, and  their  husbands  stood  to  each  other  in  the  relation- 
ship of  punalua.  In  the  other  group,  which  rests  upon 
the  brotherhood  of  the  husbands,  a  woman  calls  her  hus- 
band's brother  her  husband.  All  the  brothers  of  her  hus- 
band, own  as  well  as  collateral,  were  also  her  husbands. 
But  the  wife  of  her  husband's  brother  she  calls  punalua, 
and  the  several  wives  of  her  husband's  brothers  stand  to 
her  in  the  relationship  of  punalua.  These  wives  were 
not,  probably,  sisters  of  each  other,  for  the  reason  stated 
in  the  other  case,  although  exceptions  doubtless  existed 
under  both  branches  of  the  custom.  All  these  wives 
stood  to  each  other  in  the  relationship  of  punalua. 

It  is  evident  that  the  punaluan  family  was  formed  out 
of  the  consanguine.  Brothers  ceased  to  marry  their  own 
sisters ;  and  after  the  gentile  organization  had  worked 
upon  society  its  complete  results,  their  collateral  sisters 
as  well.  But  in  the  interval  they  shared  their  remaining 
wives  in  common.  In  like  manner,  sisters  ceased  mar- 
rying their  own  brothers,  and  after  a  long  period  of  time. 
their  collateral  brothers ;  but  they  shared  their  remaining 
husbands  in  common.  The  advancement  of  society  out 
of  the  consanguine  into  the  punaluan  family  was  the 
inception  of  a  great    upward    movement,    preparing  the 


438  ANCIENT  JSO'CIETY 

way  for  the  gentile  organization  which  gradually  con- 
ducted to  the  s}-ndyasmian  family,  and  ultimately  to  the 
monogamian. 

Another  remarkable  fact  with  respect  to  the  custom  of 
punalua,  is  the  necessity  which  exists  for  its  ancient 
prevalence  among  the  ancestors  of  the  Turanian  and 
Ganowanian  families  when  their  system  of  consanguinity 
was  formed.  The  reason  is  simple  and  conclusive.  Mar- 
riages in  punaluan  groups  explain  the  relationships  in 
the  system.  Presumptively  they  are  those  which  actually 
existed  when  this  system  was  formed.  The  existence  of 
the  system,  therefore,  requires  the  antecedent  prevalence 
of  punaluan  marriage,  and  of  the  punaluan  family.  Ad- 
vancing to  the  civilized  nations,  there  seems  to  have  been 
an  equal  necessity  for  the  ancient  existence  of  punaluan 
groups  among  the  remote  ancestors  of  all  such  as  pos- 
sessed the  gentile  organization — Greeks,  Romans.  Ger- 
mans, Celts,  Hebrews  —  for  it  is  reasonably  certain  that 
all  the  families  of  mankind  who  rose  under  the  gentile 
organization  to  the  practice  of  monogamy  possessed,  in 
prior  times,  the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity  which 
sprang  from  the  punaluan  group.  It  will  he  found  that 
the  great  movement,  which  commenced  in  the  formation 
of  this  group,  was,  in  the  main,  consummated  through 
the  organization  into  gentes,  and  that  the  latter  was  gen- 
erally accompained,  prior  to  the  rise  of  monogamy,  by 
the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity. 

Traces  of  the  punaluan  custom  remained,  here  and 
there,  down  to  the  Middle  Period  of  barbarism,  in  excep- 
tional cases,  in  European,  Asiatic,  and  American  tribes. 
The  most  remarkable  illustration  is  given  by  Csesar  in 
stating  the  marriage  customs  of  the  ancient  Britons.  He 
observes  that,  "by  tens  and  by  twelves,  husbands  posses- 
sed their  wives  in  common  ;  and  especially  brothers  with 
brothers  and  parents  with  their  children.'" 

This  passage  reveals  a  custom  of  intermarriage  in  the 
group  which  punalua  explains.  Barbarian  mothers  would 
not  be  expected  to  show  ten  and  twelve  sons,  as  a  rule, 

I  "De  Ben.  GaU.,"  v.  14. 


THE  PUNALUAN  FAMILY  43d 

or  even  in  exceptional  cases;  but  under  the  Turanian 
system  of  consanguinity,  which  we  are  justified  in  sup- 
posing the  Britons  to  have  possessed,  large  groups  of 
brothers  are  always  found,  because  male  cousins,  near 
and  remote,  fall  into  this  category  with  Ego.  Several 
brothers  among  the  Britons,  according  to  Caesar,  posses- 
sed their  wives  in  common.  Here  we  find  one  branch  of 
the  punaluan  custom,  pure  and  simple.  The  correlative 
group  which  this  presupposes,  where  several  sisters  shared 
their  husbands  in  common,  is  not  suggested  directly  by 
Caesar ;  but  it  probablv  existed  as  the  complement  of  the 
first.  Something  beyond  the  first  he  noticed,  namely, 
that  parents,  with  their  children,  shared  their  wives  in 
common.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  these  wives  were  sisters. 
Whether  or  not  Caesar  by  this  expression  referred  to  the 
other  group,  it  serves  to  mark  the  extent  to  which  plural 
marriages  in  the  group  existed  among  the  Britons ;  and 
which  was  the  striking  fact  that  arrested  the  attention 
of  this  distinguished  observer.  Where  several  brothers 
were  married  to  each  other's  wives,  these  wives  were 
married  to  each  other's  husbands. 

Herodotus,  speaking  of  the  Massagetae,  who  were  in 
the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism,  remarks  that  every  man 
had  one  wife,  yet  all  the  wives  were  common.^  It  may 
be  implied  from  thts  statement  that  the  syndyasmian  fam- 
ily had  begun  to  supervene  upon  the  punaluan.  Each 
husband  paired  with  one  wife,  who  thus  became  his 
principal  wife,  but  within  the  limits  of  the  group  hus- 
bands and  wives  continued  in  common.  If  Herodotus 
intended  to  intimate  a  state  of  promiscuity,  it  probably 
did  not  exist.  The  Massagetae,  although  ignorant  of 
iron,  possessed  flocks  and  herds,  fought  on  horseback 
armed  with  battle-axes  of  copper  and  with  copper-pointed 
spears,  and  manufactured  and  used  the  wagon  (aniaxa). 
It  is  not  supposable  that  a  people  living  in  promiscuity 
could  have  attained  such  a  degree  of  advancement.  He 
also  remarks  of  the  Agathyrsi,  who  were  in  the  same 
status  probably,  that  they  had  their    wives  in    common 

I  Lib.,   1.   c.  216. 


440  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

that  they  might  all  be  brothers,  and,  as  members  of  a 
common  family,  neither  envy  nor  hate  one  another.* 
Punaluan  marriage  in  the  group  affords  a  more  rational 
and  satisfactory  explanation  of  these,  and  similar  usages 
in  other  tribes  mentioned  by  Herodotus,  than  polygamy 
or  general  promiscuity.  His  accounts  are  too  meager  to 
illustrate  the  actual  state  of  society  among  them. 

Traces  of  the  punaluan  custom  were  noticed  in  some 
of  the  least  advanced  tribes  of  the  South  American  abo- 
rigines ;  but  the  particulars  are  not  fully  given.  Thus, 
the  first  navigators  who  visited  the  coast  tribes  of  Ven- 
ezuela found  a  state  of  society  which  suggests  for  its 
explanation  punaluan  groups.  "They  observe  no  law  or 
rule  in  matrimony,  but  took  as  many  wives  as  they  would, 
and  they  as  many  husbands,  quitting  one  another  at  pleas- 
ure, without  reckoning  any  wrong  done  on  either  part. 
There  was  no  such  thing  as  jealousy  among  them,  all 
living  as  best  pleased  them,  without  taking  offence  at  one 
another.  .  .  .  The  houses  the}-  dwelt  in  were  com- 
mon to  all,  and  so  spacious  that  they  contained  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty  persons,  strongly  built,  though  covered 
with  palm-tree  leaves,  and  shaped  like  a  bell."  These 
tribes  used  earthen  vessels  and  were  therefore  in  the 
Lower  .Status  of  barbarism  ;  but  from  this  account  were 
bu.t  slightly  removed  from  savagery.  In  this  case,  and 
in  those  mentioned  by  Herodotus,  the  observations  upon 
which  the  statements  were  made  were  superficial.  It 
shows,  at  least,  a  low  condition  of  the  family  and  of  the 
marriage  relation. 

When  Xorth  America  was  discovered  in  its  several 
parts,  the  punaluan  family  seems  to  have  entirelv  disap- 
peared. Xo  tradition  remained  among  them,  so  far  as  I 
am  aware,  of  the  ancient    prevalence  of    the    punaluan 

1  Lib.,   iv,   c.   101. 

2  Ilerrera's  "History  of  America,"  1.  c,  1.  216.  Speaking  of  the 
roast  tribes  of  Brazil,  Herrera  further  remarks  that  "they  live 
in  bohios,  or  large  thatohod  cottapes,  of  which  there  are  about 
eight   In  every  village,   full  of  people,  with  their  nests  or  liam- 

mocks  to   lie   In They    live    in    a    beastly   inannor,    without 

any  regard  to  justice  or  decency."— lb.,  iv.  94.  Garcilasso  de  la 
Vega  gives  an  equall.v  unfavorable  account  of  the  marriage  re- 
lation among  some  of  the  l'->-\vest  tribes  of  Peru. — "Royal  Com. 
of   Peru,"   1.   c,  pp.    10  and    lOfi. 


THE   PUXALUAX   FAMILY  441 

custom.  The  family  generally  had  passed  out  of  the 
punaluan  into  the  s\  ndyasmian  form  ;  but  it  was  envi- 
roned with  the  remains  of  an  ancient  conjugal  system 
which  points  backward  to  punaluan  groups.  One  custom 
may  be  cited  of  unmistakable  punaluan  origin,  which  is 
still  recognized  in  at  least  forty  North  American  Indian 
tribes.  Where  a  man  married  the  eldest  daughter  of  a 
family  he  became  entitled  by  custom  to  all  her  sisters  as 
wives  when  they  attained  the  marriageable  age.  It  was 
a  right  seldom  enforced,  from  the  difficulty,  on  the  part 
of  the  individual,  of  maintaining  several  families,  al- 
though polygamy  was  recognized  universally  as  a  privi- 
lege of  the  males.  We  find  in  this  the  remains  of  the 
custom  of  punalua  among  their  remote  ancestors.  Un- 
doubtedly there  was  a  time  among  them  when  own  sis- 
ters went  into  the  marriage  relation  on  the  basis  of  their 
sisterhood ;  the  husband  of  one  being  the  husband  of  all, 
but  not  the  only  husband,  for  other  males  were  joint  hus- 
bands with  him  in  the  group.  After  the  punaluan  family 
fell  out,  the  right  remained  with  the  husband  of  the  eldest 
sister  to  become  the  husband  of  all  her  sisters  if  he  chose 
to  claim  it.  It  may  with  reason  be  regarded  as  a  genuine 
survival  of  the  ancient  punaluan  custom. 

Other  traces  of  this  family  among  the  tribes  of  man- 
kind might  be  cited  from  historical  works,  tending  to 
show  not  only  its  ancient  existence,  but  its  wide  preva- 
lence as  well.  It  is  unnecessary,  however,  to  extend  these 
citations,  because  the  antecedent  existence  of  the  punaluan 
family  among  the  ancestors  of  all  the  tribes  who  possess, 
or  did  possess,  the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity  can 
be  deduced  from  the  system  itself. 

II.  Orii^in  of  the  Organization  into  Gentes. 

It  has  before  been  suggested  that  the  time,  when  this 
institution  originated,  was  the  period  of  savagery,  firstly, 
because  it  is  found  in  complete  development  in  the  Lower 
Status  of  barbarism ;  and  secondly,  because  it  is  found  in 
partial  development  in  th.e  Status  of  savagery.  More- 
over, the  germ  of  the  gens  is  found  as  plainly  in  the 
Australian  classes  as  in  the  Hawaiian  punaluan  group. 
The  gentes  are  also  found  among  the  Australians,  based 


442  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

upon  the  classes,  with  the  apparent  manner  of  their  or- 
ganization out  of  them.  Such  a  remarkable  institution  as 
the  gens  would  not  be  expected  to  spring  into  existence 
complete,  or  to  grow  out  of  nothing,  that  is,  without  a 
foundation  previously  formed  by  natural  growth.  Its 
birth  must  be  sought  in  pre-existing  elements  of  society, 
and  its  maturity  would  be  expected  to  occur  long  after 
its  origination. 

Two  of  the  fundamental  rules  of  the  gens  in  its  archaic 
form  are  found  in  the  Australian  classes,  namely,  the  pro- 
hibition of  intermarriage  between  brothers  and  sisters, 
and  descent  in  the  female  line.  The  last  fact  is  made 
entirely  evident  when  the  gens  appeared,  for  the  children 
are  then  found  in  the  gens  of  their  mothers.  The  natural 
adaptation  of  the  classes  to  give  birth  to  the  gens  is  suf- 
ficiently obvious  to  suggest  the  probability  that  it  actually 
so  occurred.  Moreover,  this  probability  is  strengthened 
by  the  fact  that  the  gens  is  here  found  in  connection  with 
an  antecedent  and  more  archaic  organization,  which  was 
still  the  unit  of  a  social  system,  a  place  belonging  of  right 
to  the  gens. 

Turning  now  to  the  Hawaiian  punaluan  group,  the 
same  elements  are  found  containing  the  germ  of  the  gens. 
It  is  confined,  however,  to  the  female  branch  of  the 
custom,  where  several  sisters,  own  and  collateral,  shared 
their  husbands  in  common.  These  sisters,  with  their  chil- 
dren and  descendants  through  females,  furnish  the  exact 
membership  of  a  gens  of  the  archaic  type.  Descent  would 
necessarily  be  traced  through  females,  because  the  patern- 
ity of  children  was  not  ascertainable  with  certainty.  As 
soon  as  this  special  form  of  marriage  in  the  group  became 
an  established  institution,  the  foundation  for  a  gens 
existed.  It  then  required  an  exercise  of  intelligence  to 
turn  this  natural  punaluan  group  into  an  organization, 
restricted  to  these  mothers,  their  children,  and  descend- 
ants in  the  female  line.  The  Hawaiians,  although  this 
group  existed  among  them,  did  not  rise  to  the  conception 
of  a  gens.  But  to  precisely  such  a  group  as  this,  resting 
upon  the  sisterhood  of  the  mothers,  or  to  the  similar 
Australian    group,  resting    upon  the  same    principle  of 


THE  PUNALUAN  FAMILY  .443 

union,  the  origin  of  the  gens  must  be  ascribed.  It  took 
this  group  as  it  found  it,  and  organized  certain  of  its 
members,  with  certain  of  their  posterity,  into  a  gens  on 
the  basis  of  kin. 

To  explain  the  exact  manner  in  which  the  gens  origi- 
nated is,  of  course,  impossible.  The  facts  and  circum- 
stances belong  to  a  remote  antiquity.  But  the  gens  may 
be  traced  back  to  a  condition  of  ancient  society  calculated 
to  bring  it  into  existence.  This  is  all  I  have  attempted 
to  do.  It  belongs  in  its  origin  to  a  low  stage  of  human 
development,  and  to  a  very  ancient  condition  of  society ; 
though  later  in  time  than  the  first  appearance  of  the 
punaluan  family.  It  is  quite  evident  that  it  sprang  up 
in  this  family,  which  consisted  of  a  group  of  persons 
coincident  substantially  with  the  membership  of  a  gens. 

The  influence  of  the  gentile  organization  upon  ancient 
society  was  conservative  and  elevating.  After  it  had  be- 
come fully  developed  and  expanded  over  large  areas,  and 
after  time  enough  had  elapsed  to  work  its  full  influence 
upon  society,  wives  became  scarce  in  place  of  their  former 
abundance,  because  it  tended  to  contract  the  size  of  the 
punaluan  group,  and  finally  to  overthrow  it.  The  syn- 
dyasmian  family  was  gradually  produced  within  the 
punaluan,  after  the  gentile  organization  became  predomi- 
nant over  ancient  society.  The  intermediate  stages  of 
progress  are  not  well  asertained ;  but,  given  the  punaluan 
family  in  the  Status  of  savagery,  and  the  syndyasmian 
family  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  and  the  fact  of 
progress  from  one  into  the  other  may  be  deduced  with 
reasonable  certainty.  It  was  after  the  latter  family  began 
to  appear,  and  punaluan  groups  to  disappear,  that  wuves 
came  to  be  sought  by  purchase  and  by  capture.  With- 
out discussing  the  evidence  still  accessible,  it  is  a  plain 
inference  that  the  gentile  organization  was  the  efficient 
cause  of  the  final  overthrow  of  the  punaluan  family,  and 
of  the  gradual  reduction  of  the  stupendous  conjugal 
system  of  the  period  of  savagery.  While  it  originated 
in  the  punaluan  group,  as  we  must  suppose,  it  neverthe- 
less carried  society  beyond  and  above  its  plane. 


444  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

III.  The  Turanian  or  Ganowdnian  System  of  Consan- 
guinity. 

This  system  and  the  gentile  organization,  when  in  its 
archaic  form,  are  usually  found  together.  They  are  not 
mutually  dependent ;  but  they  probably  appeared  not  far 
apart  in  the  order  of  human  progress.  But  systems  of 
consanguinity  and  the  several  forms  of  the  family  stand 
in  direct  relations.  The  family  represents  an  active 
principle.  It  is  never  stationary,  but  advances  from  a 
lower  to  a  higher  form  as  society  advances  from  a  lower 
to  a  higher  condition,  and  finally  passes  out  of  one  form 
into  another  of  higher  grade.  Systems  of  consanguinity, 
on  the  contrary,  are  passive ;  recording  the  progress  made 
by  the  family  at  long  intervals  apart,  and  only  changing 
radically  when  the  family  has  radically  changed. 

The  Turanian  system  could  not  have  been  formed  un- 
less punaluan  marriage  and  the  punaluan  family  had 
existed  at  the  time.  In  a  society  wherein  by  general 
usage  several  sisters  were  married  in  a  group  to  each 
other's  husbands,  and  several  brothers  in  a  group  to  each 
other's  wives,  the  conditions  were  present  for  the  crea- 
tion of  the  Turanian  system.  Any  system  formed  to  ex- 
press the  actual  relationships  as  they  existed  in  such  a 
family  would,  of  necessity,  be  the  Turanian ;  and  would, 
of  itself,  demonstrate  the  existence  of  such  a  family 
when  it  was  formed. 

It  is  now  proposed  to  take  up  this  remarkable  system  as 
it  still  exists  in  the  Turanian  and  Ganowanian  families, 
and  ofifer  it  in  evidence  to  prove  the  existence  of  the 
punaluan  family  at  the  time  it  was  established.  It  has 
come  down  to  the  present  time  on  two  continents  after 
the  marriage  customs  in  which  it  originated  had  disap- 
peared, and  after  the  family  had  passed  out  of  the 
punaluan  into  the  syndyasmian  form. 

In  order  to  appreciate  the  evidence  it  will  be  necessary 
to  examine  the  details  of  the  system.  That  of  the  Seneca- 
Iroquois  will  be  used  as  typical  on  the  part  of  the  Gano- 
wanian tribes  of  America,  and  that  of  the  Tamil  people 
of  South  India  on  the  part  of  the  Turanian  tribes  of 
Asia.      These  forms,  which  are    substantially    identical 


THE  PUNALUAN  FAMILY  445 

through  upwards  of  two  hundred  relationships  of  the 
same  person,  will  be  found  in  a  Table  at  the  end  of  this 
chapter.  In  a  previous  work*  I  have  presented  in  full 
the  system  of  consanguinit}'  of  some  seventy  American 
Indian  tribes ;  and  among  Asiatic  tribes  and  nations  that 
of  the  Tamil,  Telugu,  and  Canarese  people  of  South 
India,  among  all  of  whom  the  system,  as  given  in  the 
Table,  is  now  in  practical  daily  use.  There  are  diversities 
in  the  systems  of  the  different  tribes  and  nations,  but  the 
radical  features  are  constant.  All  alike  salute  by  kin, 
but  with  this  difference,  that  among  the  Tamil  people 
where  the  person  addressed  is  younger  than  the  speaker, 
the  term  of  relationship  must  be  used ;  but  when  older 
the  option  is  given  to  salute  by  kin  or  by  the  personal 
name.  On  the  contrary,  among  the  American  aborigines, 
the  address  must  always  be  by  the  term  of  relationship. 
They  use  the  system  in  addresses  because  it  is  a  system 
of  consanguinity  and  affinity.  It  was  also  the  means  by 
which  each  individual  in  the  ancient  gentes  was  able  to 
trace  his  connection  with  every  member  of  his  gens  until 
monogamy  broke  up  the  Turanian  system.  It  will  be 
found,  in  many  cases,  that  the  relationship  of  the  same 
person  to  Ego  is  different  as  the  sex  of  Ego  is  changed. 
For  this  reason  it  was  found  necessary  to  state  the  ques- 
tion twice,  once  with  a  male  speaking,  and  again  with  a 
female.  Notwithstanding  the  diversities  it  created,  the 
system  is  logical  throughout.  To  exhibit  its  character,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  pass  through  the  several  lines  as  was 
done  in  the  Malayan  system.  The  Seneca-Iroquois  will 
be  used. 

The  relationships  of  grandfather  {Hoc'-sote),  and 
grandmother  {Oc'-sote),  and  of  grandson  (Ha-yd'-da), 
and  granddaughter  (Ka-yd'-da),  are  the  most  remote 
recognized  either  in  the  ascending  or  descending  series. 
Ancestors  and  descendants  above  and  below  these,  fall 
into  the  same  categories  respectively. 

The  relationships  of  brother  and  sister  are  conceived  in 

I  "Systems  of  Consanguinity  and  Affinity  of  the  Human  Fam- 
ily," Smithsonian   Contributions  to  Knowledge,   vol.   xvll. 


446  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

the  twofold  form  of  elder  and  younger,  and  not  in  the 
abstract ;  and  there  are  special  terms  for  each,  as  follow : 

Elder   Brother,    Ha'-ge.    Elder   Sister,    Ah'-j4.     ^ 
Younger   Brother,  Ha'-ga.    Younger   Sister,  Ka  -ga. 

These  terms  are  used  by  the  males  and  females,  and 
are  applied  to  all  such  brothers  or  sisters  as  are  older  or 
younger  than  the  person  speaking.  In  Tamil  there  are 
two  sets  of  terms  for  these  relationships,  but  they  are 
now  used  indiscriminately  by  both  sexes. 

First  Collateral  Line.  With  myself  a  male,  and  speak- 
ing as  a  Seneca,  my  brother's  son  and  daughter  are  my 
son  and  daughter  (Ha-ah'-icuk,  and  Ka-ah'-wuk),  each 
of  them  calling  me  father  (Hd-nih).  This  is  the  first 
indicative  feature  of  the  system.  It  places  my  brother's 
children  in  the  same  category  with  my  own.  They  are  my 
children  as  well  as  his.  My  brother's  grandchildren  are 
my  grandsons  and  granddaughters  (Ha-yd'da,  and  Ka- 
yd -da,  singular),  each  of  them  cading  me  grandfather 
(Hoc'-sote).  The  relationships  here  given  uve  those 
recognized  and  applied ;  none  others  are  knowti. 

Certain  relationships  will  be  distinguished  a?  indica- 
tive. They  usually  control  those  that  precede  and  follow. 
When  they  agree  in  the  systems  of  different  tribes,  and 
even  of  different  families  of  mankind,  as  in  the  Tura- 
nian and  Ganowanian.  they  establish  theii-  fundamental 
identity. 

In  the  female  branch  of  this  line,  myself  still  a  male, 
my  sister's  son  and  daughter  are  my  nephew  and  niece 
(Ha-yd'-zvan-da,  and  Ka-yd'zvan-da) ,  each  of  them  call- 
ing me  uncle  {Hoc-no' seh).  This  is  a  second  indicative 
feature.  It  restricts  the  relationships  of  nephew  and 
niece  to  the  children  of  a  man's  sisters,  own  or  collateral. 
The  children  of  this  nephew  and  niece  are  my  grand- 
children as  before,  each  of  them  applying  to  me  the 
proper  correlative. 

With  myself  a  female,  a  part  of  these  relationships  are 
reversed.  My  brother's  son  and  daughter  are  my  nephew 
and  niece  {Ha-soh'-neh,  and  Ka-soh'-nch),  each  of  them 
calling  me  aunt  (Ah-ga'-huc).  It  will  be  noticed  that  the 
terms  for  nephew  and  niece  used  by  the  males  are  dif- 


THE  PUNALUAN  FAMILY  447 

ferent  from  those  used  by  the  females.  The  children  of 
these  nephews  and  nieces  are  my  grandchildren.  In  the 
female  branch,  my  sister's  son  and  daughter  are  my  son 
and  daughter,  each  of  them  calling  me  mother  (Noh- 
ych'),  and  their  children  are  my  grandchildren,  each  of 
them  calling  me  grandmother  (Oc'-sote). 

The  wives  of  these  sons  and  nephews  are  my  daughters- 
in-law  {Ka'-sd),  and  the  husbands  of  these  daughters 
and  nieces  are  my  sons-in-law  (Oc-na'-Jiose,  each  term 
singular),  and  they  apply  to  me  the  proper  correlative. 

Second  Collateral  Line.  In  the  male  branch  of  tliis 
line,  on  the  father's  side,  and  irrespective  of  the  sex  of 
Ego,  my  father's  brother  is  my  father,  and  calls  me  his 
son  or  daughter  as  I  am  a  male  or  a  female.  Third  in- 
dicative feature.  All  the  brothers  of  a  father  are  placed 
in  the  relation  of  fathers.  His  son  and  daughter  are  my 
brother  and  sister,  elder  or  younger,  and  I  apply  to  then] 
the  same  terms  I  use  to  designate  own  brothers  and  sis- 
ters. Fourth  indicative  feature.  It  places  the  children 
of  brothers  in  the  relationship  of  brothers  and  sisters. 
The  children  of  these  brothers,  myself  a  male,  are  my 
sons  and  daughters,  and  their  children  are  my  grand- 
children ;  whilst  the  children  of  these  sisters  are  my 
nephews  and  nieces,  and  the  children  of  the  latter  are 
my  grandchildren.  But  with  myself  a  female  the  children 
of  these  brothers  are  my  nc])hcws  and  nieces,  the  chil- 
dren of  these  sisters  are  my  sons  and  daughters,  and  their 
children,  alike  are  my  grandchildren.  It  is  thus  seen  that 
the  classification  in  the  first  collateral  line  is  carried  into 
the  second,  as  it  is  into  the  third  and  more  remote  as 
far  as  consanguinei  can  be  traced. 

]\Iy  father's  sister  is  my  aunt,  and  calls  me  her  nephew 
if  I  am  a  male.  Fifth  indicative  feature.  The  relation- 
ship of  aunt  is  restricted  to  the  sisters  of  my  father,  and 
to  the  sisters  of  such  other  persons  as  stand  to  me  in  the 
relation  of  a  father,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  sisters  of 
my  mother.  My  father's  sister's  children  are  my  cousins 
{Ah-gare'-seh,  singular),  each  of  them  calling  me 
cousin.  With  myself  a  male,  the  children  of  my  male 
cousins  are  my  sons  and  daughters,  and  of  my  female 


-443  ANCIENT    SOCIETY 

cousins  are  my  nephews  and  nieces ;  but  with  myself  a 
female  these  last  relationships  are  reversed.  All  the  chil- 
dren of  the  latter  are  my  grandchildren. 

On  the  mother's  side,  myself  a  male,  my  mother's 
brother  is  my  uncle,  and  calls  me  his  nephew.  Sixth  in- 
dicative feature.  The  relationship  of  uncle  is  restricted 
to  the  brothers  of  my  mother,  own  and  collateral,  to  the 
exclusion  of  my  father's  brothers.  His  children  are  my 
cousins,  the  children  of  my  male  cousins  are  my  sons  and 
daughters,  of  my  female  cousins  are  my  nephews  and 
nieces ;  but  with  myself  a  female  these  last  relationships 
are  reversed,  the  children  of  all  alike  are  my  grandchil- 
dren. 

In  the  female  branch  of  the  same  line  my  mother's  sis- 
ter is  my  mother.  Seventh  indicative  feature.  All  of 
several  sisters,  own  and  collateral,  are  placed  in  the  rela- 
tion of  a  mother  to  the  children  of  each  other.  My 
mother's  sister's  children  are  my  brothers  and  sisters, 
elder  or  younger.  Eighth  indicative  feature.  It  estab- 
lishes the  relationship  of  brother  and  sister  among  the 
children  of  sisters.  The  children  of  these  brothers  are 
my  sons  and  daughters,  of  these  sisters  are  my  nephews 
and  nieces ;  and  the  children  of  the  latter  are  my  grand- 
children. With  myself  a  female  the  same  relationships 
are  reversed  as  in  previous  cases. 

Each  of  the  wives  of  these  several  brothers,  and  of 
these  several  male  cousins  is  my  sister-in-law  ( Ah-ge-ah' ■ 
ne-ah),  each  of  them  calling  me  brother-in-law  (Ha- 
ya'-o).  The  precise  meaning  of  the  former  term  is  not 
known.  Each  of  the  husbands  of  these  several  sisters  and 
female  cousins  is  my  brother-in-law,  and  they  all  apply 
to  me  the  proper  correlative.  Traces  of  the  punakian 
custom  remain  here  and  there  in  the  marriage  relation- 
ship of  the  American  aborigines,  namely,  between  Ego 
and  the  wives  of  several  brothers  and  the  husbands  of 
several  sisters.  In  Mandan  my  brother's  wife  is  my  wife, 
and  in  Pawnee  and  Arickarce  the  same.  In  Crow  my 
husband's  brother's  wife  is  "my  comrade"  (Bot-ze'-no- 
f-ii-clic),  in  Creek  my  "present  occupant"  (Chii-Jiu'-cho- 
TC'a),and  in  Munsee  "my  friend"  (Nain-jose').    In  Win- 


THE   PUXALUAN  FAMILY  449 

nebago  and  Achaotinne  she  is  "my  sister."  My  wife's 
sister's  husband,  in  some  tribes  is  "my  brother,"  in  others 
my  "brother-in-law,"  and  in  Creek  "my  little  separater" 
(Un-ka-pit'-chc),  whatever  that  m.ay  mean. 

Third  Collateral  Line.  As  the  relationships  in  the  sev- 
eral branches  of  this  line  are  the  same  as  in  the  corres- 
ponding- branches  of  the  second,  with  the  exception  of 
one  additional  ancestor,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  present  one 
branch  out  of  the  four.  Aly  father's  father's  brother  is 
my  grandfather,  and  calls  me  his  grandson.  This  is  a 
ninth  indicative  feature,  and  the  last  of  the  number.  It 
places  these  brothers  in  the  relation  of  grandfathers,  and 
thus  prevents  collateral  ascendants  from  passing  beyond 
this  relationship.  The  principle  which  merges  the  col- 
lateral lines  in  the  lineal  line  works  upward  as  well  as 
dovsiiward.  The  son  of  this  grandfather  is  my  father ; 
his  children  are  my  brothers  and  sisters ;  the  children  of 
these  brothers  are  my  sons  and  daughters,  of  these  sisters 
are  my  nephews  and  nieces ;  and  their  children  are  my 
grandchildren.  With  myself  a  female  the  same  relation- 
ships are  reversed  as  in  previous  cases.  Moreover,  the 
correlative  term  is  applied  in  every  instance. 

Fourth  Collateral  Line.  It  will  be  sufficient,  for  the  same 
reason,  to  give  but  a  single  branch  of  this  line.  My  grand- 
father's father's  brother  is  my  grandfather;  his  son  is  also 
any  grandfather;  the  son  of  the  latter  is  my  father;  his 
son  and  daughter  are  ni}-  brother  and  sister,  elder  or 
younger ;  and  their  children  and  grandchildren  follow  in 
the  same  relationshij^  to  Ego  as  in  other  cases.  In  the 
fifth  collateral  line  the  classification  is  the  same  in  its  sev- 
eral branches  as  in  the  corresponding  branches  of  the 
second,  with  the  exception  of  additional  ancestors. 

It  follows,  from  the  nature  of  the  system,  that  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  numerical  degrees  of  consanguinity  is  essen- 
tial to  a  proper  classification  of  kindred.  But  to  a  native 
Indian  accustomed  to  its  daily  use  the  apparent  maze  of 
relationships  presents  no  difficulty. 

Among  the  remaining  marriage  relationships  there  are 
terms  in  Seneca-Iroquois  for  father-in-law  (Oc-na'-Jwsc) , 
for  a  wife's    father,  and   (Hd-gd'-sd)    for    a    husband's 


450  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

father.  The  former  term  is  also  used  to  designate  a  son- 
in-law,  thus  showing  it  to  be  reciprocal.  There  are  also 
terms  for  step-father  and  step-mother  (Hoc'-no-ese)  and 
{Oc'-no-ese),  and  for  step-son  and  step-daughter  {Ha'- 
no  and  Ka'-no).  In  a  number  of  tribes  two  fathers-in- 
law  and  two-mothers-in-law  are  related,  and  there  are 
terms  to  express  the  connection.  The  opulence  of  the 
nomenclature,  although  made  necessary  by  the  elaborate 
discriminations  of  the  system,  is  nevertheless  remarkable. 
For  full  details  of  the  Seneca-Iroquois  and  Tamil  system 
reference  is  made  to  the  Table.  Their  identity  is  appar- 
ent on  bare  inspection.  It  shows  not  only  the  .prevalence 
of  punaluan  marriage  amongst  their  remote  ancestors 
when  the  system  was  formed,  but  also  the  powerful  im- 
pression which  this  form  of  marriage  made  upon  ancient 
society.  It  is,  at  the  same  time,  one  of  the  most  ex- 
traordinary applications  of  the  natural  logic  of  the  human 
mind  to  the  facts  of  the  social  system  preserved  in  the 
experience  of  mankind. 

That  the  Turanian  and  Ganowanian  system  was 
engrafted  upon  a  previous  Malayan,  or  one  like  it  in  all 
essential  respects,  is  now  demonstrated.  In  about  one- 
half  of  all  the  relationships  named,  the  two  are  identical. 
If  those  are  examined,  in  which  the  Seneca  and  Tamil 
differ  from  the  Hawaiian,  it  will  be  found  that  the  dif- 
ference is  upon  those  relationships  which  depended  on 
the  intermarriage  or  non-intermarriage  of  brothers  and 
sisters.  In  the  former  two,  for  example,  my  sister's  son 
is  my  nephew,  but  in  the  latter  he  is  my  son.  The  two 
relationships  express  the  difference  between  the  consan- 
guine and  punaluan  families.  The  change  of  relation- 
ships which  resulted  from  substituting  punaluan  in  the 
place  of  consanguine  marriages  turns  the  Malayan  into 
the  Turanian  system.  But  it  may  be  asked  why  the 
Hawaiians,  who  had  the  punaluan  family,  did  not  reform 
their  system  of  consanguinity  in  accordance  therewith  ? 
The  answer  has  elsewhere  been  given,  but  it  may  be 
repeated.  The  form  of  the  family  keeps  in  advance  of 
the  system.  In  Polynesia  it  was  punaluan  while  the  sys- 
tem remained  Malayan;  in  America  it  was  syndyasmian 


THE   PUNALUAN  FAMILY  45I 

while  the  system  remained  Turanian;  and  in  Europe  and 
Western  Asia  it  became  monogamian  while  the  system 
seems  to  have  remained  Turanian  for  a  time,  but  it  then 
fell  into  decadence,  and  was  succeeded  by  the  Aryan. 
Furthermore,  although  the  family  has  passed  through 
five  forms,  but  three  distinct  systems  of  consanguinity 
were  created,  so  far  as  is  now  known.  It  required  an 
organic  change  in  society  attaining  unusual  dimensions 
to  change  essentially  an  established  system  of, consanguin- 
ity. I  think  it  will  be  found  that  the  organization  into 
gentes  was  sufficiently  influential  and  sufficiently  uni- 
versal to  change  the  Malayan  system  into  the  Turanian; 
and  that  monogamy,  when  fully  established  in  the  more 
advanced  branches  of  the  human  family,  was  sufficient, 
with  the  influence  of  property,  to  overthrow  the  Turan- 
ian system  and  substitute  the  Aryan. 

It  remains  to  explain  the  origin  of  such  Turanian  rela- 
tionships as  differ  from  the  Malayan,  Punaluan  mar- 
riages and  the  gentile  organizations  form  the  basis  of 
the  explanation. 

I.  All  the  children  of  my  several  brothers,  own  and 
collateral,  myself  a  male,  are  my  sons  and  daughters. 

Reasons :  Speaking  as  a  Seneca,  all  the  wives  of  my 
several  brothers  are  mine  as  well  as  theirs.  W'c  are  now 
speaking  of  the  time  when  the  system  was  formed.  It  is 
the  same  in  the  Malayan,  where  the  reasons  are  assigned. 

II.  All  the  children  of  my  several  sisters,  own  and 
collateral,  myself  a  m?.le.  are  my  nephews  and  nieces. 

Reasons  :  Under  the  gentile  organization  these  females, 
by  a  law  of  the  gens,  cannot  be  my  wives.  Their  chil- 
dren, therefore.  c;*n  no  longer  be  my  children,  but  stand 
to  me  in  a  more  remote  relationship :  whence  the  new 
relationships  of  nephew  and  niece.  This  differs  from  the 
Malayan. 

III.  With  myself  a  female,  the  children  of  my  several 
brothers,  own  and  collateral,  are  my  nephews  and  nieces. 

Reasons,  as  in  II.     This  also  differs  from  the  Malavan. 

IV.  With  myself  a  female,  the  children  of  my  several 
sisters,  own  and  collateral,  and  of  my  several  female 
cousins,  are  my  sons  and  daughters. 


453  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

Reasons :  All  their  husbands  are  my  husbands  as  well. 
In  strictness  these  children  are  my  step-chiMren,  and  are 
so  described  in  Ojibwa  and  several  other  Algonkin  tribes ; 
but  in  the  Seneca-Iroquois,  and  in  Tamil,  following  the 
ancient  classification,  they  are  placed  in  the  category  of 
my  sons  and  daughters,  for  reasons  given  in  the  Ma- 
layan. 

V.  All  the  children  of  these  sons  and  daughters  are 
my  grandchildren. 

Reason :  They  are  the  children  of  my  sons  and  daugh- 
ters. 

VI.  All  the  children  of  these  nephews  and  nieces  are 
my  grandchildren. 

Reason :  These  were  the  relationships  of  the  same  per- 
sons under  the  Malayan  system,  which  presumptively  pre- 
ceded the  Turanian.  No  new  one  having  been  invented, 
the  old  would  remain. 

VII.  All  the  brothers  of  my  father,  own  and  collat- 
eral, are  my  fathers. 

Reason :  They  are  the  husbands  of  my  mother.  It  is 
the  same  in  Malayan. 

VIII.  All  the  sisters  of  my  father,  own  and  collateral, 
are  my  aunts. 

Reason :  Under  the  gentile  organization  neither  can  be 
the  wife  of  my  father;  wherefore  the  previous  relation- 
ship of  mother  is  inadmissible.  A  new  relationship, 
therefore,  was  required :  whence  that  of  aunt. 

IX.  All  the  brothers  of  my  mother,  own  and  collat- 
eral, are  my  uncles. 

Reasons :  They  are  no  longer  the  husbands  of  my 
mother,  and  must  stand  to  me  in  a  more  remote  relation- 
ship than  that  of  father :  whence  the  new  relationship  of 
uncle. 

X.  All  the  sisters  of  my  mother,  own  and  collateral, 
are  my  mothers. 

Reasons,  as  in  IV. 

XI.  All  the  children  of  my  father's  brothers,  and  all 
the  children  of  my  mother's  sisters,  own  and  collateral, 
are  my  brothers  and  sisters. 


THE  PUNALUAN  FAMILY  45$ 

Reasons :  It  is  the  same  in  Malayan,  and  for  reasons 
there  given. 

XII.  All  the  children  of  my  several  uncles  and  all  the 
children  of  my  several  aunts,  own  and  collateral,  are  my 
male  and  female  cousins. 

Reasons:  Under  the  gentile  organization  all  these 
uncles  and  aunts  are  excluded  from  the  marriage  rela- 
tion with  my  father  and  mother;  wherefore  their  chil- 
dren cannot  stand  to  me  in  the  relation  of  brothers  and 
sisters,  as  in  the  Malayan,  but  must  be  placed  in  one 
more  remote :  whence  the  new  relationship  of  cousin. 

XIII.  In  Tamil  all  the  children  of  my  male  cousins, 
myself  a  male,  are  my  nephews  and  nieces,  and  all  the 
children  of  my  female  cousins  are  my  sons  and  daughters. 
This  is  the  exact  reverse  of  the  rule  among  the  Seneca- 
Iroquois,  It  tends  to  show  that  among  the  Tamil  peo- 
ple, when  the  Turanian  system  came  in,  all  my  female 
cousins  were  my  wives,  whilst  the  wives  of  my  male 
cousins  were  not.  It  is  a  singular  fact  that  the  devia- 
tion on  these  relationships  is  the  only  one  of  any  import- 
ance between  the  two  systems  in  the  relationships  to  Ego 
of  some  two  hundred  persons. 

XIV.  All  the  brothers  and  sisters  of  my  grandfather 
and  of  my  grandmother  are  my  grandfathers  and  grand- 
mothers. 

Reason :  It  is  the  same  in  Malayan,  and  for  the  reasons 
there  given. 

It  is  now  made  additionally  plain  that  both  the  Tura- 
nian and  Ganowanian  systems,  which  are  identical,  super- 
vened upon  an  original  Malayan  system ;  and  that  the  lat- 
ter must  have  prevailed  generally  in  Asia  before  the  Ma- 
layan migration  to  the  Islands  of  the  Pacific.  Moreover, 
there  are  good  grounds  for  believing  that  the  system  was 
transmitted  in  the  Malayan  form  to  the  ancestors  of  the 
three  families,  with  the  streams  of  the  blood,  from  a  com- 
mon Asiatic  source,  and  afterward,  modified  into  its  pres- 
ent form  by  the  remote  ancestors  of  the  Turanian  and 
Ganowanian  families. 

The  principal  rclationshij^s  of  the  Turanian  system 
have  now  beon  explained  in  their  origin,  and  are  found 


464  ANClENf  SOCTEl'-f 

to  be  those  which  would  actually  exist  in  the  punaluan 
family  as  near  as  the  parentage  of  children  could  be 
known.  The  system  explains  itself  as  an  organic  growth, 
and  since  it  could  not  haye  originated  without  an  ade- 
quate cause,  the  inference  becomes  legitimate  as  well  as 
necessary  that  it  .was  created  by  punaluan  families.  It 
will  be  noticed,  however,  that  several  of  the  marriage 
relationships  have  been  changed. 

The  system  treats  all  brothers  as  the  husbands  of  each 
other's  wives,  and  all  sisters  as  the  wives  of  each  other's 
husbands,  and  as  intermarried  in  a  group.  At  the  time 
the  system  was  formed,  wherever  a  man  found  a  brother, 
own  or  collateral,  and  those  in  that  relation  were  numer- 
ous, in  the  wife  of  that  brother  he  found  an  additional 
wife.  In  like  manner,  wherever  a  woman  found  a  sister, 
own  or  collateral,  and  those  in  that  relation  were  equally 
numerous,  in  the  husband  of  that  sister  she  found  an 
additional  husband.  The  brotherhood  of  the  husbands 
and  the  sisterhood  of  the  wives  formed  the  basis  of  the 
relation.  It  is  fully  expressed  by  the  Hawaiian  custom 
of  pitnaliia.  Theoretically,  the  family  of  the  period  was 
co-extensive  with  the  group  united  in  the  marriage  rela- 
tion ;  but,  practically,  it  must  have  subdivided  into  a  num- 
ber of  smaller  families  for  convenience  of  habitation  and 
subsistence.  The  brothers,  by  tens  and  twelves,  of  the 
Britons,  married  to  each  other's  wives,  would  indicate 
the  size  of  an  ordinary  subdivision  of  a  punaluan  group. 
Communism  in  living  seems  to  have  originated  in  the 
necessities  of  the  consanguine  family,  to  have  been  con- 
tinued in  the  punaluan,  and  to  have  been  transmitted  to 
the  syndyasmian  among  the  American  aborigines,  with 
whom  it  remained  a  practice  down  to  the  epoch  of  their 
discovery.  Punaluan  marriage  is  now  unknown  among 
them,  but  the  system  of  consanguinity  it  created  has  sur- 
vived the  customs  in  which  it  originated.  The  plan  of 
family  life  and  of  habitation  among  savage  tribes  has 
been  imperfectly  stwlied.  A  knowledge  of  their  usages 
in  these  respects  and  of  their  mode  of  subsistence  would 
throw  a  strong  light  upon  the  questions  under  consider- 
ation. 


THE  PUNALUAN  FAMILY  455 

Two  forms  of  the  family  have  now  been  explained  in 
fheir  origin  by  two  parallel  systems  of  consanguinity. 
The  proofs  seem  to  be  conclusive.  It  gives  the  starting 
pbint  of  human  society  after  mankind  had  emerged  from 
a  still  lower  condition  and  entered  the  organism  of  the 
consanguine  family.  From  this  first  form  to  the  sec- 
ond the  transition  was  natural ;  a  development  from  a 
lower  into  a  higher  social  condition  through  observation 
and  experience.  It  was  a  result  of  the  improvable  mental 
and  moral  qualities  which  belong  to  the  human  species. 
The  consanguine  and  punaluan  families  represent  the 
substance  of  human  progress  through  the  greater  part 
of  the  petiod  of  savagery.  Although  the  second  was  a 
great  improvement  upon  the  first,  it  was  still  very  distant 
from  the  monogamian.  An  impression  may  be  formed  by 
a  comparison  of  the  several  forms  of  the  family,  of  the 
slow  rate  of  progress  in  savagery,  where  the  means  of 
advancement  were  slight,  and  the  obstacles  were  formid- 
able. Ages  upon  ages  of  substantially  stationary  life,  with 
advance  and  decline.^  undoubtedly  marked  the  course  of 
events ;  but  the  general  movement  of  society  was  from 
a  lower  to  a  higher  condition,  otherwise  mankind  would 
have  remained  in  savagery.  It  is  something  to  find  an 
assured  initial  point  from  which  mankind  started  on  their 
great  and  marvelous  career  of  progress,  even  though  so 
near  the  bottom  of  the  scale,  and  though  limited  to  a 
form  of  the  family  so  peculiar  as  the  CjQUsaagiiiiie. 


456 

4 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY 


II 


2    S      -   I 


>2  B 

sec 


S  JJ      « 

J     <*J     jd  g  3 

•:?5^  §J3  c^  ti! 


-ri  ^A  2  9  wEirS.2' 


1 


1^ 


•3  5vS 


3 

a   • 

--    S3     „ 


&&    .-      -f,  u-^. 


G       =  J 


■ss-s 


b    t    & 


S    S 


^t! 


-■S5    .  - 


ij3  boj 


•  1 1 

IIJI 


o.«! 

II 


ia55(( 


i^^j:  sj:^-a 


.        .        .        .      ^      «        .        .. 

■¥•■?"  §  -Ss!         J- 

*i:  ? •? "V ■? ■? "9  J       ^^'Y'V'7  T 

i  ^  ir  "rt  ?rt  ^  ^  ^n  »rt  irt  jrt  ?rt  jrfl  :rt  !?!  ic« 
n^  n  c  >*>*>.>^  >>^  >»  c  >N  >^  >»  >» 

sxjd.^  o Ji ^ j: Jic jz j^ jai  oji^jz^ 


■s 


V: 


-"I 


:| 


I 


■5 


!]>:33;::jsittil 


>  I  3  s  a  I  « 


;  c  a 


•f.'^'o 


"  o 


=  2'c 


•c  B  C  g  5  t:  1--      „ 
» -_2  In -3  MM    ::: 

5   rt   S  .C   »-  ""to  t**?   c  rt   rt         ^ 

,-§•?■?•.  ^h^^       gg-S-S&M&Eig'g 


•« 

^ 

r  = 

^ 

JX 

•S-J^ 

^£ 

•D-O 

3    3 

uttGD  Ul 

I  C  I  9  (  3 


»>•.»>«  •«<>0-nm»««t>«o.g-g2.J««5«  ?g;mAmaa"feft% 


THE   fUNALUAN   FAMILY 


457 


g!  :  : 


I  i,  c  c  & 


da 
1     s 

iS 
.5. 


.IP    i 


>^£i  M   CD   B   Q  S  CO 


E  e  B 


■g-SoC      'S'i'g'S'U'VC 
E  a.a.h      E  S  S  a  aim 


as 


°  ^  °  n 


be     to 
^  o  5 


•£o-°■T2^9   . 


mi 

a^-3  2 


5  u^  o 
e  3  3  a  g  S  g  rt-a      C^  S  S-S  §  o  a  S-3  Jj  ac  8  2  3  P  g 


« s 


1---^^-.     1 

■?  S  S  ^?.'?.'?.'?,1 1  -S  g  ■?L'i'?.%1    ^  -s.^  &->;^"i-f  8  -^  ?  'S.Hi  ^>-'^  a  3  "1"^  ^"^^^ 

■^^  Ojci2.c-:<.H.:<^  ;j=.:^.c.^.H       s-cx  n  n -^  .c -c  J  .j^  .^  jj-J.:^ -g  jin  j;  n  13  n  gH  J 
•       •       •     .?  :       •     i^      •.? 

•5 5.    :«. 

•    •    •    •    •    •    •  -  •    •    •     -  -a •    •§•    2' 

...'...,.        .    .^^  ^  .    .  ^    .^ 

V.5        ^     -5"     ^     -5  -Sf        -S 

•  -t^  ir. — r  s  • —  • 

I     ^»    1    i     m^  ■»§•!  "^     ll      •    • 

I     Jigs  I  «         ^l>5^.^2--3    ^:  I  ;  &6  -Sj)    "S 

•Sf-"  =  Sei        1   -I'l      12=2-3   -32        -3         &I-Sc    •;?••? 

b  =  3«m3S      „  -r.-f,^  -rs  jj  J.J:    ja:;::::::::::::]:   •,'>, 

S-S-o  uKuuic  c  2  =  «  e  3  3  2     8  «S 

S2-o-3feu&&^    -3  -a-S 


NO  *"  n  <*i  «  m^  I 


458 
t      I 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY 


§    gS 


Ifflllliir  liifillitillll  llllilSil 


t  i  i  S  Z  Z  i 


S33«3:;        3S(SC3 


.1^ 


irfi.:' 


.■3=  |,g  -s^-||  I  3| 

g-o'2.'««.3-se"ai5  6=  S  a  a 
■I  c  c  ?^  f  c -15  M.l3  €3  € •£ 3 

o.a.o.%  SS  S  6  «S  e  a  a  S  6  8  9 


tsi 


9 

.-s 


•2       -4 


2- 


mi 

»  S  ?  : 


9  2  o  5J5 

3    dj    O    U   iB  < 


122 


HI     g 


•     8      • 


s>ss*:eat 


ii^jl-! 


xfl  ^  >rt  i  -ta  rrt  a 


-C  o-C  c5>rt^>rtj 


iiilli 


65=  s»»      ••$•• 

»  a  •  <  -  :    S  S 

£J3 


39*a«S33d 


6 


tsis«e     ts»*t««t 


•*:•<(«•>•• 


«««*>•• 


fi^S"^^'*.**^ »av»«*s«.s*8:8 ogrsrsr^?  ssr rjrs  =^ ?8 8 1 


THE   PUNALUAN  FAMILY 


459 


460 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY 


X. 


•■3  c 

•  ~  o 


s 

S  S'" 

a  Mi's  E 


J!  " 

lit 


O   2   (J  -c  ^  **  « 


«^«a 


f 

>> 

t) 


s  •  •  • 


0 


II 


•S5     •   -c-^f 


g  3  5  • 


!t  ■?■?■?'?- Ill  I  3 


iwd  S  &)&U>8'w'3  MM&3  8  S  I 


::::«:« 


-•  •  •  i M 


>.  X>>iM»  J 


-^       -'5' 


Al!^^ 


•5-    • 

21,8 


3  S  a:  5    _  c  2--.  * 
•3-a^       |8.-§-..: 


h- 


•S:  ;  ;  :   fl  = 

\ •£.• 

^  6 


•    •-«  N 

■3:  : 


3 


:  :  :  -S:  5  :  : 

o 

e 


'  m»o  r^oo  o>Q  -•  < 


5   g:  : 

6 

■b 


I'- 
•net. 


• » 

^22-53 

s-Ss-  ■ 


CO  or?  CO    O"  C 


h^o'O'O'OvoIo  5  S  ^  S  22  fij 


461 


THE   PUNALUAN  FAMILY 


-r-r:  site 


o 

'J 


"S  C         c 


C.2 

IS  " 
1i 


•  S  ■  9        8  8- 

«  J    I  -     i;  *  JS  A  A  o 

•7,  ««  V  <i  WTJTJO  OJ^ 

i:  >.£lj>sbcc  c  c  c  y 

O  (^^  rt^  O  O  O  O  3 


» 

If  '■-•■■ 


rsrsr 

S  »  •  a  a 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  SYNDYASMIAN  AND  THE  PATRIARCHAL  FAMILIES 

When  the  American  aborigines  were  discovered,  that 
portion  of  them  who  were  in  the  Lxjwer  Status  of  barbar- 
ism, had  attained  to  the  syndyasmian  or  pairing  family. 
The  large  groups  in  the  marriage  relation,  which  must 
have  existed  in  the  previous  period,  had  disappeared ;  and 
in  their  places  were  married  pairs,  forming  clearly 
marked,  though  but  partially  individualized  families.  In 
this  family,  may  be  recognized  the  germ  of  the  mono- 
gamian,  but  it  was  below  the  latter  in  several  essential 
particulars. 

The  syndyasmian  family  was  special  and  peculiar.  Sev- 
eral of  them  were  usually  found  in  one  house,  forming 
a  communal  household,  in  which  the  principle  of  com- 
munism in  living  was  practiced.  The  fact  of  the  con- 
junction of  several  such  families  in  a  common  household 
is  of  itself  an  admission  that  the  family  was  too  feeble  an 
organization  to  face  alone  the  hardships  of  life.  Never- 
theless it  was  founded  upon  marriage  between  single 
pairs,  and  possessed  some  of  the  characteristics  of  the 
monogamian  family.  The  woman  was  now  something 
more  than  the  principal  wife  of  her  husband ;  she  was 
his  companion,  the  preparer  of  his  food,  and  the  mother 
of  children  whom  he  now  began  with  some  issurance  to 
regard  as  his  own.  The  birth  of  children,  fo  whom  they 
jointly  cared,  tended  to  cement  the  union  and  render  it 
permanent. 

4«2 


STNDTASMIAN   AND   PATRIARCHAL    FAMILIES        468 

But  the  marriage  institution  was  as  peculiar  as  the 
family.  Men  did  not  seek  wives  as  they  are  sought  in 
civilized  society,  from  affection,  for  the  passion  of  love, 
which  required  a  higher  development  than  they  had  at- 
tained, was  unknown  among  them.  Marriage,  therefore, 
was  not  founded  upon  sentiment  but  upon  convenience 
and  necessity.  It  was  left  to  the  mothers,  in  effect,  to 
arrange  the  marriages  of  their  children,  and  they  were 
negotiated  generally  without  the  knowledge  of  the  parties 
to  be  married,  and  without  asking  their  previous  consent. 
It  sometimes  happened  that  entire  strangers  were  thus 
brought  into  the  marriage  relation.  At  the  proper  time 
they  were  notified  when  the  simple  nuptial  ceremony 
would  be  performed.  Such  were  the  usages  of  the  Iro- 
quois and  many  other  Indian  tribes.  Acquiescence  in 
these  maternal  contracts  was  a  duty  which  the  parties 
seldom  refused.  Prior  to  the  marriage,  presents  to  the 
gentile  relatives  of  the  bride,  nearest  in  degree,  partaking 
of  the  nature  of  purchasing  gifts,  became  a  feature  in 
these  matrimonial  transactions.  The  relation,  however, 
continued  during  the  pleasure  of  the  parties,  and  no 
longer.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  it  is  properly  distin- 
guished as  the  pairing  family.  The  husband  could  put 
away  his  wife  at  pleasure  and  take  another  without 
offence,  and  the  woman  enjoyed  the  equal  right  of  leav- 
ing her  husband  and  accepting  another,  in  which  the 
usages  of  her  tribe  and  gens  were  not  infringed.  But  a 
public  sentiment  gradually  formed  and  grew  into  strength 
against  such  separations.  When  alienation  arose  between 
a  married  pair,  and  their  separation  became  imminent, 
the  gentile  kindred  of  each  attempted  a  reconciliation  of 
the  parties,  in  which  they  were  often  successful ;  but  if 
they  were  unable  to  remove  the  difficulty  their  separation 
was  approved.  The  wife  then  left  the  home  of  her  hus- 
band, taking  with  her  their  children,  who  were  regarded 
as  exclusively  her  own,  and  her  personal  effects,  upon 
which  her  husband  had  no  claim:  or  where  the  wife's 
kindred  predominated  in  the  communal  household,  whicr 
was  usually  the  case,  the  husband  left  the  home  of  his 


464  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

wife.  ^     Thus  the  continuance  of  the  marriage  relation 
remained  at  the  option  of  the  parties. 

There  was  another  feature  of  the  relation  which  shows 
that  the  Amerilcan  aborigines  in  the  Lower  Status  of  bar- 
barism had  not  attained  the  moral  development  implied 
by  monogamy.  Among  the  Iroquois,  who  were  barbar- 
ians of  high  mental  grade,  and  among  the  equally  ad- 
vanced Indian  tribes  generally,  chastity  had  come  to  be 
required  of  the  wife  under  severe  penalties  which  the 
husband  might  inflict ;  but  he  did  not  admit  the  reciprocal 
obligation.  The  one  cannot  be  permanently  realized  with- 
out the  other.  Moreover,  polygamy  was  universally  rec- 
ognized as  the  right  of  the  males,  although  the  practice 
was  limited  from  inability  to  support  the  indulgence. 
There  were  other  usages,  that  need  not  be  mentioned, 
tending  still  further  to  show  that  they  were  below  a  con- 
ception of  monogamy,  as  that  great  institution  is  properly 
defined.  Exceptional  cases  very  likely  existed.  It  will 
be  found  equally  true,  as  I  believe,  of  barbarous  tribes 
in  general.  The  principal  feature  which  distinguished 
the  syndyasmian  from  the  monogamian  family,  although 
liable  to  numerous  exceptions,  was  the  absence  of  an 
exclusive  cohabitation.  The  old  conjugal  system,  a  record 
of  v/hich  is  still  preserved  in  their  system  of  consanguin- 

I  The  late  Rev.  A.  'VV'^right,  for  many  years  a  missionary  among 
the  Senecas,  wrote  the  author  in  1873  on  this  subject  as  follows: 
"As  to  their  family  system,  when  occupying  the  old  long-houses. 
It  is  probable  that  some  one  clan  predominated,  the  women  tak- 
ing in  I'.usbands,  however,  from  the  other  clans;  and  some- 
times, f  r  a  novelty,  some  of  their  sons  bringing  in  their  young 
wives  until  they  felt  brave  enough  to  leave  their  mothers.  Usu- 
allj',  the  female  portion  ruled  the  house,  and  were  doubtless 
clannish  enough  about  it.  The  stores  were  in  common;  bwt  woe 
to  the  luckless  husl^and  or  lover  who  was  too  shiftless  to  do 
his  sliare  of  tlie  providing.  No  matter  liow  many  cliildren,  or 
whatever  goods  he  miglit  have  in  the  house,  he  might  at  any 
time  be  ordered  to  pick  up  his  blanket  and  budge;  and  after 
such  orders  it  would  not  be  healthful  for  him  to  attempt  to 
disoliey.  The  house  would  bo  too  hot  for  him;  and,  unless  saved 
by  the  intercession  of  somf>  aunt  or  grandmother,  he  must  re- 
treat to  his  own  clan;  or,  as  was  often  done,  go  and  start  a 
new  matrimonial  alliance  in  some  other.  The  women  were  the 
great  power  among  the  clans,  as  everyv/here  else.  They  did 
not  hesitate,  when  occasion  required,  'to  knock  off  the  horns,' 
as  it  was  teclinicolly  c.TlIed.  from  the  head  of  a  chief,  and  send 
him  back  to  the  rnnks  of  the  warriors.  T)ie  original  nomina- 
tion of  the  chiefs  also  always  rested  with  them."  These  state- 
ments Illustrate  the  gyneocracy  discussed  by  Bachofen  In  "Das 
Mutterrecht." 


SYNDTASMIAN   AND   PATRIARCHAL   FAMILIES        465 

ity,   undoubtedly   remained,   but   under   reduced   and   re- 
stricted forms. 

Among  the  Village  Indians  in  the  Middle  Status  of 
barbarism  the  facts  were  not  essentially  different,  so  far 
as  they  can  be  said  to  be  known.  A  comparison  of  the 
usages  of  the  American  aborigines,  with  respect  to  mar- 
riage and  divorce,  shows  an  existing  similarity  suffi- 
ciently strong  to  imply  original  identity  of  usages.  A 
few  only  can  be  noticed.  Clavigero  remarks  that  among 
the  Aztecs  "the  parents  were  the  persons  who  settled  all 
marriages,  and  none  were  ever  executed  without  their 
consent."  ^  "A  priest  tied  a  point  of  the  huepilli,  or 
gown  of  the  bride,  with  the  tilmatli,  or  mantle  of  the 
bridegroom,  and  in  this  ceremony  the  matrimonial  con- 
tract chiefly  consisted."^  Herrera,  after  speaking  of  the 
same  ceremony,  observes  that  "all  that  the  bride  brought 
was  kept  in  memory,  that  in  case  they  should  be  unmar- 
ried again,  as  was  usual  among  them,  the  goods  might 
be  parted ;  the  man  taking  the  daughters,  and  the  wife  ■ 
the  sons,  with  liberty  to  marry  again."  ^ 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  Aztec  Indian  did  not  seek 
his  wife  personally  any  more  than  the  Iroquois.  Among 
both  it  was  less  an  individual  than  a  public  or  gentile 
affair,  and  therefore  still  remained  under  parental  con- 
trol exclusively.  There  was  very  little  social  intercourse 
between  unmarried  persons  of  the  two  sexes  in  Indian 
life ;  and  as  attachments  WTre  not  contracted,  none  were 
traversed  by  these  marriages,  in  which  personal  wishes 
were  unconsidered,  and  in  fact  unimportant.  It  appears 
further,  that  the  personal  effects  of  the  wife  were  kept 
distinct  among  the  Aztecs  as  among  the  Iroquois,  that 
in  case  of  separation,  which  was  a  common  occurrence 
as  this  writer  states,  she  might  retain  them  in  accord- 
ance with  general  Indian  usage.  Finally,  while  among 
the  Iroquois  in  the  case  of  divorce  the  wife  took  all  the 
children,  the  Aztec  husband  was  entitled  to  the  daugh- 
ters, and  the  wife  to  the  sons ;  a  modification  of  the  an- 


1  •■Hlstorv   of   Mexico."    riiU.    ed.,    1817,    Cullen's    trans.,    II.    99. 

2  lb.,   ii,   iOl. 

3  "History  of  America,"   1.  c,  lii,   217, 


466  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

cient  usage  which  implies  a  prior  time  when  the  Iroquois 
Indian  rule  existed  among  the  ancestors  of  the  Aztecs. 

Speaking  of  the  people  of  Yucatan  generally  Herrera 
further  remarks  that  "formerly  they  were  wont  to  marry 
at  twenty  years  of  age,  and  afterwards  came  to  twelve 
or  fourteen,  and  having  no  affection  for  their  wives  were 
divorced  for  every  trifle."  ^  The  Mayas  of  Yucatan  were 
superior  to  the  Aztecs  in  culture  and  development ;  but 
where  marriages  were  regulated  on  the  prmciple  of  neces- 
sity, and  not  through  personal  choice,  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  the  relation  was  unstable,  and  that  separation 
was  at  the  option  of  either  party.  Moreover,  polygamy 
was  a  recognized  right  of  the  males  among  the  Village 
Indians,  and  seems  to  have  been  more  generally  practiced 
than  among  the  less  advanced  tribes.  These  glimpses  at 
institutions  purely  Indian  as  well  as  barbarian  reveal  in 
a  forcible  manner  the  actual  condition  of  the  aborigines 
in  relative  advancement.  In  a  matter  so  personal  as  the 
marriage  relation,  the  wishes  or  preferences  of  the  par- 
ties were  not  consulted.  No  better  evidence  is  needed 
of  the  barbarism  of  the  people. 

We  are  next  to  notice  some  of  the  influences  ^hich 
developed  this  family  from  the  punaluan.  In  the  latter 
there  was  more  or  less  of  pairing  from  the  necessities  of 
the  social  state,  each  man  having  a  principal  wife  among 
a  number  of  wives,  and  each  woman  a  principal  hus- 
band among  a  number  of  husbands ;  so  that  the  tend- 
ency in  the  punaluan  family,  from  the  first,  was  in  the 
direction  of  the  syndyasmian. 

The  organization  into  gentes  was  the  principal  instru- 
mentality that  accomplished  this  result ;  but  through  long 
and  gradual  processes.  Firstly.  It  did  not  at  once  break 
up  intermarriage  in  the  group,  which  it  found  established 
by  custom ;  but  the  prohibition  of  intermarriage  in  the 
gens  excluded  own  brothers  and  sisters,  and  also  the  chil- 
dren of  own  sisters,  since  all  of  these  were  of  the  same 
gens.  Own  brothers  could  still  share  their  wives  in  com- 
mon, and  own  sisters  their  husbands ;  consequently  the 

I  "History  of  America,"  Iv,  171. 


STNDYASMIAN    AND   PATRIARCHAL   FAMILIES        467 

gens  did  not  interfere  directly  with  punaluan  marriage, 
except  to  narrow  its  range.  But  it  withheld  permanently 
from  that  relation  all  the  descendants  in  the  female  line 
of  each  ancestor  within  the  gens,  w^hich  was  a  great  in- 
novation upon  the  previous  punaluan  group.  When  the 
gens  subdivided,  the  prohibition  followed  its  branches, 
for  long  periods  of  time,  as  has  been  shown  was  the  case 
among  the  Iroquois.  Secondly.  The  structure  and  prin- 
ciples of  the  organization  tended  to  create  a  prejudice 
against  the  marriage  of  consanguinei,  as  the  advantages 
of  marriages  between  unrelated  persons  were  gradually 
discovered  through  the  practice  of  marrying  out  of  the 
gens.  This  seems  to  have  grown  apace  until  a  public 
sentiment  was  finally  arrayed  against  it  which  had  become 
very  general  among  the  American  aborigines  when  dis- 
covered. ^  For  example,  among  the  Iroquois  none  of  the 
blood  relatives  enumerated  in  the  Table  of  ccrtisanguinity 
were  marriageable.  Since  it  became  necessary  to  seek 
wives  from  other  gentes  they  began  to  be  acquired  by 
negotiation  and  by  purchase.  The  gentile  organization 
must  have  led,  step  by  step,  as  its  influence  became  gen- 
eral, to  a  scarcity  of  wives  in  place  of  their  previous 
abundance ;  and  as  a  consequence,  have  gradually  con- 
tracted the  numbers  in  the  punaluan  group.  This  con- 
clusion is  reasonable,  because  there  are  sufficient  grounds 
for  assuming  the  existence  of  ^uch  groups  when  the 
Turanian  system  of  consanguinity  was  formed.  They 
have  now  disappeared  although  the  system  remains. 
These  groups  must  have  gradually  declined,  and  finally 
disappeared  with  the  general  establishment  of  the  syndy- 
asmian  family.  Fourthly.  In  seeking  wives,  they  did 
not  confine  themselves  to  their  own,  nor  even  to  friendly 
tribes,  but  captured  them  by  force  from  hostile  tribes.  It 
furnishes  a  reason  for  the  Indian  usage  of  sparing  the 
lives  of  female  captives,   while  the  males  were  put  to 


1  A  case  amonp  the  Shyans  was  mentioned  to  the  author,  'by 
one  of  their  chiefs,  wliere  first  cousins  had  married  against 
ihelr  usages.  There  was  no  penalty  for  tKe  act;  but  they  •were 
ridiculed  so  constantly  by  their  associates  that  they  voluntar- 
ily separated  rather  than  face  the  prejudice. 


468  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

death.  When  wives  came  to  be  acquired  by  purchase  and 
by  capture,  and  more  and  more  by  effort  and  sacrifice, 
they  would  not  be  as  readily  shared  with  others.  It  would 
tend,  at  least,  to  cut  off  that  portion  of  the  theoretical 
group  not  immediately  associated  for  subsistence;  and 
thus  reduce  still  more  the  size  of  the  family  and  the  range 
of  the  conjugal  system.  Practically,  the  group  would 
tend  to  limit  itself,  from  the  first,  to  own  brothers  who 
shared  their  wives  in  common  and  to  own  sisters  who 
shared  their  husbands  in  common.  Lastly.  The  gentes 
created  a  higher  organic  structure  of  society  than  had 
before  been  known,  with  processes  of  development  as  a 
social  system  adequate  to  the  wants  of  mankind  until 
civilization  supervened.  With  the  progress  of  society 
under  the  gentes,  the  way  was  prepared  for  the  appear- 
ance of  the  syndyasmian  family. 

The  influence  of  the  new  practice,  which  brought  unre- 
lated persons  into  the  marriage  relation,  must  have  given 
a  remarkable  impulse  to  society.  It  tended  to  create  a 
more  vigorous  stock  physically  and  mentally.  There  is 
a  gain  by  accretion  in  the  coalescence  of  diverse  stocks 
which  has  exercised  great  influence  upon  human  devel- 
opment. When  two  advancing  tribes,  with  strong  mental 
and  physical  characters,  are  brought  together  and"  blended 
into  one  people  by  the  accidents  of  barbarous  life,  the 
new  skull  and  brain  would  widen  and  lengthen  to  the 
sum  of  the  capabilities  of  both.  Such  a  stock  would  be 
an  improvement  upon  both,  and  this  superiority  would 
assert  itself  in  an  increase  of  intelligence  and  of  numbers. 

It  follows  that  the  propensity  to  pair,  now  so  power- 
fully developed  in  the  civilized  races,  had  remained  un- 
formed in  the  human  mind  until  the  punaluan  custom 
began  to  disappear.  Exceptional  cases  undoubtedly  oc- 
curred where  usages  would  permit  the  privilege ;  but  it 
failed  to  become  general  until  the  syndyasmian  family 
appeared.  This  propensity,  therefore,  cannot  be  called  nor- 
mal to  mankind,  but  is,  rather,  a  growth  through  experi- 
ence, like  all  the  great  passions  and   powers  of  the  mind. 

Another  influence  may  be  adverted  to  which  tended  to 
retard  the  growth  of  this  family.     Warfare  among  bar- 


SYNDTASMIAN   AND   PATRIARCHAL   FAMILIES        469 

barians  is  more  destructive  of  life  than  among  savages, 
from  improved  weapons  and  stronger  incentives.  The 
males,  in  all  periods  and  conditions  of  society,  have  as- 
sumed the  trade  of  fighting,  which  tended  to  change  the 
balance  of  the  sexes,  and  leave  the  females  in  excess. 
This  would  manifestly  tend  to  strengthen  the  conjugal 
system  created  by  marriages  in  the  group.  It  would, 
also,  retard  the  advancement  of  the  syndyasmian  family 
by  maintaining  sentiments  of  low  grade  with  respect  to 
the  relations  of  the  sexes,  and  the  character  and  dignity 
of  woman. 

On  the  other  hand,  improvement  in  subsistence,  which 
followed  the  cultivation  of  maize  and  plants  among  the 
American  aborigines,  must  have  favored  the  general  ad- 
vancement of  the  family.  It  led  to  localization,  to  the 
use  of  additional  arts,  to  an  improved  house  architecture, 
and  to  a  more  intelligent  life.  Industry  and  frugality, 
though  limited  in  degree,  with  increased  protection  of 
life,  must  have  accompanied  the  formation  of  families 
consisting  of  single  pairs.  The  more  these  advantages 
were  realized,  the  more  stable  such  a  family  would 
become,  and  the  more  its  individuality  would  increase. 
Having  taken  refuge  in  a  communal  household,  in  which 
a  group  of  such  families  succeeded  the  punaluan  group, 
it  now  drew  its  support  from  itself,  from  the  household, 
and  from  the  gentes  to  which  the  husbands  and  wives 
respectively  belonged.  The  great  advancement  of  soci- 
ety indicated  by  the  transition  from  savagery  into  the 
Lower  Status  of  barbarism,  would  carry  with  it  a  cor- 
responding improvement  in  the  condition  of  the  family, 
the  course  of  development  of  which  was  steadily  upward 
to  the  monogamian.  If  the  existence  of  the  syndyasmian 
family  were  unknown,  given  the  punaluan  toward  one 
extreme,  and  the  monogamian  on  the  other,  the  occur- 
rence of  such  an  intermediate  form  might  have  been  pre- 
dicted. It  has  had  a  long  duration  in  human  experience. 
Springing  up  on  the  confines  of  savagery  and  barbarism, 
it  traversed  the  Middle  and  the  greater  part  of  the  Later 
Period  of  barbarism,  when  it  was  superseded  by  a  low 
form  of  the  monogamian.    Overshadowed  by  the  conjugal 


470  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

system  of  the  times,  it  gained  in  recognition  with  the 
gradual  progress  of  society.  The  selfishness  of  mankind, 
as  distinguished  from  womankind,  delayed  the  realization 
of  strict  monogamy  until  that  great  fermentation  of  the 
human  mind  which  ushered  in  civilization. 

Two  forms  of  the  family  had  appeared  before  the 
syndyasmian  and  created  two  great  systems  of  consan- 
guinity, or  rather  two  distinct  forms  of  the  same  system ; 
but  this  third  family  neither  produced  a  new  system  nor 
sensibly  modified  the  old.  Certain  marriage  relationships 
appear  to  have  been  changed  to  accord  with  those  in  the 
new  family ;  but  the  essential  features  of  the  system 
remained  unchanged.  In  fact,  the  syndyasmian  family 
continued  for  an  unknown  period  of  time  enveloped  in 
a  system  of  consanguinity,  false,  in  the  main,  to  existing 
relationships,  and  which  it  had  no  power  to  break.  It 
was  for  the  sufficient  reason  that  it  fell  short  of  monog- 
amy, the  coming  power  able  to  dissolve  the  fabric.  Al- 
though this  family  has  no  distinct  system  of  consanguine 
ity  to  prove  its  existence,  like  its  predecessors,  it  has 
itself  existed  over  large  portions  of  the  earth  within  the 
historical  period,  and  still  exists  in  numerous  barbarous 
tribes. 

In  speaking  thus  positively  of  the  several  forms  of  the 
family  in  their  relative  order,  there  is  danger  of  being 
misunderstood.  I  do  not  mean  to  imply  that  one  form 
rises  complete  in  a  certain  status  of  society,  flourishes 
universally  and  exclusively  wherever  tribes  of  mankind 
are  found  in  the  same  status,  and  then  disappears  in  an- 
other, which  is  the  next  higher  form.  Exceptional  cases 
of  the  punaluan  family  may  have  appeared  in  the  consan- 
guine, and  z'ice  versa;  exceptional  cases  of  the  syndyas- 
mian may  have  appeared  in  the  midst  of  the  punaluan, 
and  vice  versa;  and  exceptional  cases  of  the  monogamian 
in  the  midst  of  the  syndyasmian,  and  vice  versa.  Even 
exceptional  cases  of  the  monogamian  may  have  appeared 
as  low  down  as  the  punaluan,  and  of  the  syndyasmian  as 
low  down  as  the  consanguine.  Moreover,  some  tribes 
attained  to  a  particular  form  earlier  than  other  tribes 
more  advanced ;  for  example,  the  Iroquois  had  the  syndy- 


SYNDYASMIAN   AND   PATRIARCHAL   FAMILIES        47I 

asmian  family  while  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism, 
but  the  Britons,  who  were  in  the  Middle  Status,  still  had 
the  punaluan.  The  high  civilization  on  the  shores  of  the 
Mediterranean  had  propagated  arts  and  inventions  into 
Britain  far  beyond  the  mental  development  of  its  Celtic 
inhabitants,  and  which  they  had  imperfectly  appropriated. 
They  seem  to  have  been  savages  in  their  brains,  while 
wearing  the  art  apparel  of  more  advanced  tribes.  That 
which  I  have  endeavored  to  substantiate,  and  for  which 
the  proofs  seem  to  be  adequate,  is,  that  the  family  began 
in  the  consanguine,  low  down  in  savagery,  and  grew,  by 
progressive  development,  into  the  monogamian,  through 
two  well-marked  intermediate  forms.  Each  was  partial 
in  its  introduction,  then  general,  and  finally  universal  over 
large  areas ;  after  which  it  shaded  off  into  the  next  suc- 
ceeding form,  which,  in  turn,  was  at  first  partial,  then 
general,  and  finally  universal  in  the  same  areas.  In  the 
evolution  of  these  successive  forms  the  main  direction  of 
progress  was  from  the  consanguine  to  the  monogamian. 
With  deviations  from  uniformity  in  the  progress  of  man- 
kind through  these  several  forms,  it  w'ill  generally  be 
found  that  the  consanguine  and  punaluan  families  belong 
to  the  status  of  savagery — the  former  to  its  lowest,  and 
the  latter  to  its  highest  condition — while  the  punaluan 
continued  into  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism ;  that  the 
syndyasmian  belongs  to  the  Lower  and  to  the  Middle 
Status  of  barbarism,  and  continued  into  the  Upper;  and 
that  the  monogamian  belongs  to  the  Upper  Status  of  bar- 
barism, and  continued  to  the  period  of  civilization. 

It  will  not  be  necessary,  even  if  space  permitted,  to 
trace  the  syndyasmian  family  through  barbarous  tribes 
in  general  upon  the  partial  descriptions  of  travelers  and 
observers.  The  tests  given  may  be  applied  by  each  reader 
to  cases  within  his  information.  Among  the  American 
aborigines  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism  it  was  the 
prevailing  form  of  the  family  at  the  epoch  of  their 
discovery.  Among  the  Village  Indians  in  the  Middle 
Status,  it  was  undoubtedly  the  prevailing  form,  although 
the  information  given  by  the  Spanish  writers  is  vague 
and  general.     The   communal  character  of  their  joint- 


478  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

tenement  houses  is  of  itself  stnong  evidence  that  the 
family  had  not  passed  out  of  the  syndyasmian  form.  It 
had  neither  the  individuality  nor  the  exclusiveness  which 
monogamy  implies. 

The  foreign  elements  intermingled  with  the  native 
culture  in  sections  of  the  Eastern  hemisphere  produced 
an  abnormal  condition  of  society,  where  the  arts  of  civil- 
ized life  were  remolded  to  the  aptitudes  and  wants  of 
savages  and  barbarians.  *  Tribes  strictlv  nomadic  have 
also  social  pecuharities,  growing  out  of  their  exceptional 
mode  of  life,  which  are  not  well  understood.  Through  in- 
fluences, derived  from  the  higher  races,  the  indigenous 
culture  of  many  tribes  has  been  arrested,  and  so  far 
adulterated  as  to  change  the  natural  flow  of  their  prog- 
ress. Their  institutions  and  social  state  became  modi- 
fied in  consequence. 

It  is  essential  to  systematic  progress  in  Ethnology  that 
the  condition  both  of  savage  and  of  barbarous  tribes 
should  be  studied  in  its  normal  development  in  areas 
where  the  institutions  of  the  people  are  homogeneous. 
Polynesia  and  Australia,  as  elsewhere  suggested,  are  the 
best  areas  for  the  study  of  savage  society.  Nearly  the 
whole  theory  of  savage  life  may  be  deduced  from  their  in- 
stitutions, usages  and  customs,  inventions  and  discoveries. 
North  and  South  America,  when  discovered,  afforded  the 
best  opportunities  for  studying  the  condition  of  society 
in  the  Lower  and  in  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism.  The 
aborigines,  one  stock  in  blood  and  lineage,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  Eskimos,  had  gained  possession  of  a  great 
continent,  more  richly  endowed  for  human  occupation 
than  the  Eastern  continents  save  in  animals  capable  of 
domestication.  It  afforded  them  an  ample  field  for  un- 
disturbed development.  They  came  into  its  possession 
apparently  in  a  savage  state ;  but  the  establishment  of  the 
organization  into  gentes  put  them  into  possession  of  the 
principal  germs  of  progress  possessed  by  the  ancestors 

I  Iron  has  been  smelted  from  the  ore  by  a  number  of  African 
tribes.  ineUidlnf?  t)ie  Hottentots,  as  far  bark  as  our  knowledge 
of  them  extends.  After  producing-  the  metal  by  rude  processes 
acquired  from  foreign  sources,  they  have  .succeeded  in  fabricat- 
ing rude   Implements  and  weapons. 


SYNDTASMIAN    AND   PATRIARCHAL    FAMILIES        473 

of  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  ^  Cut  off  thus  early,  and 
losing  all  further  connection  with  the  central  stream  of 
human  progress,  they  commenced  their  career  upon  a 
new  continent  with  the  humble  mental  and  moral  endow- 
ments of  savages.  The  independent  evolution  of  the 
primary  ideas  they  brought  with  them  commenced  under 
conditions  insuring  a  career  undisturbed  by  foreign  influ- 
ences. It  holds  true  alike  in  the  growth  of  the  idea  of 
government,  of  the  family,  of  household  life,  of  prop- 
erty, and  of  the  arts  of  subsistence.  Their  institutions, 
inventions  and  discoveries,  from  savagery,  through  the 
Lower  and  into  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism,  are  hom- 
ogeneous, and  still  reveal  a  continuity  of  development  of 
the  same  original  conceptions. 

In  no  part  of  the  earth,  in  modern  times,  could  a  more 
perfect  exemplification  of  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism 
be  found  than  was  afforded  by  the  Iroquois,  and  other 
tribes  of  the  United  States  east  of  the  Mississippi.  With 
their  arts  indigenous  and  unmixed,  and  with  their  insti- 
tutions pure  and  homogeneous,  the  culture  of  this  period, 
in  its  range,  elements  and  possibilities,  is  illustrated  by 
them  in  the  fullest  manner.  A  systematic  exposition  of 
these  several  subjects  ought  to  be  made,  before  the  facts 
are  allowed  to  disappear. 

In  a  still  higher  degree  all  this  was  true  with  respect 
to  the  Middle  Status  of  barbarism,  as  exemplified  by  the 
\'illage  Indians  of  New  Mexico,  Mexico,  Central  Amer- 
ica, Granada,  Ecuador,  and  Peru.  In  no  part  of  the 
earth  was  there  to  be  found  such  a  display  of  society  in 
this  Status,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  with  its  advanced 
arts  and  inventions,  its  improved  architecture,  its  nascent 
manufactures  and  its  incipient  sciences.  American  schol- 
ars have  a  poor  account  to  render  of  work  done  in  this 
fruitful  field.    It  was  in  reality  a  lost  condition  of  ancient 

I  The  Asiatic  orig-in  of  the  American  aborigrines  is  assumod. 
But  it  follows  as  a  consequence  of  the  unity  of  origin  of  man- 
kind—another assumption,  hut  one  toward  which  all  the  facts 
of  anthropology  tend.  There  is  a  mass  of  evidence  sustaining 
botli  conclusions  of  the  most  convincing  cliaracter.  Tlieir 
advent  in  America  could  not  have  restilted  from  a  deliberate 
migration;  but  must  have  been  due  to  the  accidents  of  the  sea, 
and  to  the  great  ocean  currents  from  Asia  to  the  North-west 
coast. 


474  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

society  which  was  suddenly  unveiled  to  European  observ- 
ers with  the  discovery  of  America ;  but  they  failed  to 
comprehend  its  meaning,  or  to  ascertain  its  structure. 

There  is  one  other  great  condition  of  society,  that  of 
the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  not  now  exemplified  by 
existing  nations ;  but  it  may  be  found  in  the  history  and 
traditions  of  the  Grecian  and  Roman,  and  later  of  the 
German  tribes.  It  must  be  deduced,  in  the  main,  from 
their  institutions,  inventions  and  discoveries,  although 
there  is  a  large  amount  of  information  illustrative  of  the 
culture  of  this  period,  especially  in  the  Homeric  poems. 

When  these  several  conditions  of  society  have  been 
studied  in  the  areas  of  their  highest  exemplification,  and 
are  thoroughly  understood,  the  course  of  human  devel- 
opment from  savagery,  through  barbarism  to  civilization, 
will  become  intelligible  as  a  connected  whole.  The  course 
of  human  experience  will  also  be  found  as  before  sug- 
gested to  have  run  in  nearly  uniform  channels. 

The  patriarchal  family  of  the  Semitic  tribes  requires 
but  a  brief  notice,  for  reasons  elsewhere  stated ;  and  it 
will  be  limited  to  little  more  than  a  definition.  It  belongs 
to  the  Later  Period  of  barbarism,  and  remained  for  a 
time  after  the  commencement  of  civilization.  The  chiefs, 
at  least,  lived  in  polygamy ;  but  this  was  not  the  material 
principle  of  the  patriarchal  institution.  The  organization 
of  a  number  of  persons,  bond  and  free,  into  a  family, 
under  paternal  power,  for  the  purpose  of  holding  lands, 
and  for  the  care  of  flocks  and  herds,  was  the  essential 
characteristic  of  this  family.  Those  held  to  servitude, 
and  those  employed  as  servants,  lived  in  the  marriage 
relation,  and,  with  the  patriarch  as  their  chief,  formed  a 
patriarchal  family.  Authority  over  its  members  and  over 
its  property  was  the  material  fact.  It  was  the  incorpora- 
tion of  numbers  in  servile  and  dependent  relations,  before 
that  time  unknown,  rather  than  polygamy,  that  stamped 
the  patriarchal  family  with  the  attributes  of  an  original 
institution.  In  the  great  movement  of  Semitic  society, 
which  produced  this  family,  paternal  power  over  the 
group  was  the  object  sought ;  and  with  it  a  higher  indi- 
viduality of  persons. 


SYNDYASMIAN   AND   PATRIARCHAL    FAMILIES        475 

The  same  motive  precisely  originated  the  Roman  fam- 
ily under  paternal  power  {patria  potestas)  ;  with  the 
power  in  the  father  of  life  and  death  over  his  children  and 
descendants,  as  well  as  over  the  slaves  and  servants  who 
formed  its  nucleus  and  furnished  its  name ;  and  with  the 
absolute  ownership  of  all  the  property  they  created. 
Without  polygamy,  the  pater  familias  was  a  patriarch  and 
the  family  under  him  was  patriarchal.  In  a  less  degree 
the  ancient  family  of  the  Grecian  tribes  had  the  same 
characteristics.  It  marks  that  peculiar  epoch  in  human 
progress  when  the  individuality  of  the  person  began  to 
rise  above  the  gens,  in  which  it  had  previously  been 
merged,  craving  an  independent  life,  and  a  wider  field 
of  individual  action.  Its  general  influence  tended  power- 
fully to  the  establishment  of  the  monogamian  family, 
which  was  essential  to  the  realization  of  the  objects 
sought.  These  striking  features  of  the  patriarchal  fam- 
ilies, so  unlike  any  form  previously  known,  have  given 
to  it  a  commanding  position  ;  but  the  Hebrew  and  Roman 
forms  were  exceptional  in  human  experience.  In  the 
consanguine  and  punaluan  families,  paternal  authority 
was  impossible  as  well  as  unknown ;  under  the  syndy- 
asmian  it  began  to  appear  as  a  feeble  influence ;  but  its 
growth  steadily  advanced  as  the  family  became  more  and 
more  individualized,  and  became  fully  established  under 
monogamy,  which  assured  the  paternity  of  children.  In 
the  patriarchal  family  of  the  Roman  type,  paternal  author- 
ity passed  beyond  the  bounds  of  reason  into  an  excess 
of  domination. 

No  new  system  of  consanguinity  was  created  by  the 
Hebrew  patriarchal  family.  The  Turanian  system  would 
harmonize  with  a  part  of  its  relationships ;  but  as  this 
form  of  the  family  soon  fell  out,  and  the  monogamian 
became  general,  it  was  followed  by  the  Semitic  system  of 
consanguinity,  as  the  Grecian  and  Roman  were  by  the 
Aryan.  Each  of  the  three  great  systems — the  ^Talayan, 
the  Turanian,  and  the  Aryan — indicates  a  completed  or- 
ganic movement  of  society,  and  each  assured  the  pres- 
ence, with  unerring  certainty,  of  that  form  of  the  family 
whose  relationships  it  recorded. 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY 


The  origin  of  society  has  been  so  constantly  traced  to 
the  monogamian  family  that  the  comparatively  modern 
date  now  assigned  to  this  family  bears  the  semblance  of 
novelty.  Those  writers  who  have  investigated  the  origin 
of  society  philosophically,  found  it  difficult  to  conceive 
of  its  existence  apart  from  the  family  as  its  unit,  or  of 
the  family  itself  as  other  than  monogamian.  They  also 
found  it  necessary  to  regard  the  married  pair  as  the 
nucleus  of  a  group  of  persons,  a  part  of  whom  were 
servile,  and  all  of  whom  were  under  power ;  thus  arriv- 
ing at  the  conclusion  that  society  began  in  the  patriarchal 
family,  when  it  first  became  organized.  Such,  in  fact,  was 
the  most  ancient  form  of  the  institution  made  known  to 
us  among  the  Latin,  Grecian  and  Hebrew  tribes.  Thus, 
by  relation,  the  patriarchal  family  was  made  the  typical 
family  of  primitive  society,  conceived  either  in  the  Latin 
or  Hebrew  form,  paternal  power  being  the  essence  of  the 
organism. 

The  gens,  as  it  appeared  in  the  later  period  of  barbar- 
ism, was  well  understood,  but  it  was  erroneously  sup- 
posed to  be  subsequent  in  point  of  time  to  the  mono- 
gamian family.  A  necessity  for  some  knowledge  of  the 
institutions  of  barbarous  and  even  of  savage  tribes,  is 
becoming  constantly  more  apparent  as  a  means  for  ex- 
plaining our  own  institutions.  With  the  assumption 
made  that  the  monogamian  family  was  the  unit  of  or- 
ganization in  the  social  system,  the  gens  was  treated  as 
an  aggregation  of  families,    the    tribe    as    an    aggrega- 


476 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY  477 

tion  of  gentes  and  the  nation  as  an  aggregate  of 
tribes.  The  error  Hes  in  the  first  proposition.  It  has 
been  shown  that  the  gens  entered  entire  into  the 
phratry,  the  phratry  into  the  tribe,  and  the  tribe  into 
the  nation ;  but  the  family  could  not  enter  entire  into 
the  gens,  because  husband  and  wife  were  necessarily 
of  different  gentes.  The  wife,  down  to  the  latest  pe- 
riod, counted  herself  of  the  gens  of  her  father,  and 
bore  the  name  of  his  gens  among  the  Romans.  As 
all  the  parts  must  enter  into  the  whole,  the  family  could 
not  become  the  unit  of  the  gentile  organization..  That 
place  was  held  by  the  gens.  Moreover,  the  patri- 
archal family,  whether  of  the  Roman  or  of  the  He- 
brew type,  was  entirely  unknown  throughout  the  period 
of  savagery,  through  the  Older,  and  probably  through 
the  Middle,  and  far  into  the  Later  Period  of  Ijarbarism. 
After  the  gens  had  appeared,  ages  upon  ages,  and  even 
period  upon  period,  rolled  away  before  the  monogamian 
family  came  into  existence.  It  was  not  until  after  civili- 
zation commenced  that  it  became  permanently  estab- 
lished. 

Its  modern  appearance  among  the  Latin  tribes  may  be 
inferred  from  the  signification  of  the  word  family, 
derived  from  faniilia,  which  contains  the  same  element 
as  famulus,  =  servant,  supposed  to  be  derived  from  the 
Oscan  famcl,  =  servus,  a  slave.  ^  In  its  primary  mean- 
ing the  word  family  had  no  relation  to  the  married  pair 
or  their  children,  but  to  the  body  of  slaves  and  servants 
who  labored  for  its  maintenance,  and  were  under  the 
power  of  the  pater  familias.  Familia  in  some  testamen- 
tary dispositions  is  used  as  equivalent  to  patrimonium, 
the  inheritance  which  passed  to  the  heir.  ^  It  was  intro- 
duced in  Latin  society  to  define  a  new  organism,  the 
head  of  which  held  wife  and  children,  and  a  body  of 
servile  persons  under  paternal  power.  Mommsen  uses 
the  phrase  "body  of  servants"  as  the  Latin  signification 

1  Famuli  origo  ab  Oscls  dependet,  apud  quo  servus  Famul 
nominabuntur,   unde   "familia"   vocata. — "Festus,"  p.   87. 

2  Amico  familiam  suam,,  id  est  patrimonium  suum  mancipio 
dabat.— Gaius   "Inst.,"   ii,   102. 


478  ANCIENT  -SOCIETY 

of  familia!  This  term,  therefore,  and  the  idea  it  reprc> 
sents,  are  no  older  than  the  iron-clad  family  system  ot 
the  Latin  tribes,  which  came  in  after  field  agriculture  and 
after  legalized  servitude,  as  well  as  after  the  separation 
of  the  Greeks  and  Latins.  If  any  name  was  given  to  the 
anterior  family  it  is  not  now  ascertainable. 

In  two  forms  of  the  family,  the  consanguine  and  puna- 
luan,  paternal  power  was  impossible.  When  the  gens 
appeared  in  the  midst  of  the  punaluan  group  it  united  the 
several  sisters,  with  their  children  and  descendants  in  the 
female  line,  in  perpetuity,  in  a  gens,  which  became  the 
unit  of  organization  in  the  social  system  it  created.  Out 
of  this  state  of  things  the  syndyasmian  family  was  grad- 
ually evolved,  and  with  it  the  germ  of  paternal  power. 
The  growth  of  this  power,  at  first  feeble  and  fluctuating, 
then  commenced,  and  it  steadily  increased,  as  the  new 
family  more  and  more  assumed  monogamian  character- 
istics, with  the  upward  progress  of  society.  When  prop- 
erty began  to  be  created  in  masses,  and  the  desire  for  its 
transmission  to  children  had  changed  descent  from  fhe 
female  line  to  the  male,  a  real  foundation  for  paternal 
power  was  for  the  first  time  established.  Among  the 
Hebrew  and  Latin  tribes,  when  first  known,  the  patri- 
archal family  of  the  Hebrew  type  existed  among  the 
former,  and  of  the  Roman  type  among  the  latter ;  founded 
in  both  cases  upon  the  limited  or  absolute  servitude  of  a 
number  of  persons  with  their  families,  all  of  whom,  with 
the  wives  and  children  of  the  patriarch  in  one  case,  and 
of  the  pater  familias  in  the  other,  were  under  paternal 
power.  It  was  an  exceptional,  and,  in  the  Roman  family, 
an  excessive  development  of  paternal  authority,  which, 
so  far  from  being  universal,  was  restricted  in  the  main 
to  the  people  named.  Gains  declares  that  the  power  of 
the  Roman  father  over  his  children  was  peculiar  to  the 
Romans,  and  that  in  general  no  other  people  had  the 
same  power  ^ 

1  "History   of   Rome,"  1.   c,   1,    95. 

2  Item  In  potestatc  nostra  sunt  liljorl  nostri,  quos  justls  nup- 
tlls  procreaulmus,  quod  jus  propriuin  ciuium  Romanorum  est: 
fere  enim  nulli  alii  sunt  liomines,  qui  talom  in  Alios  suos  hab- 
ent    potestatem,    qualem    nos    habemus.— "Inst.,"    1.    55.     Among' 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY  479 

It  will  be  sufficient  to  present  a  few  illustrations  of  the 
early  monogamian  family  from  classical  writers  to  give 
an  impression  of  its  character.  Monogamy  appears  in  a 
definite  form  in  the  Later  Period  of  barbarism.  Long 
prior  to  this  time  some  of  its  characteristics  had  undoubt- 
edly attached  themselves  to  the  previous  syndyasmian 
family ;  but  the  essential  element  of  tbe  former,  an  ex- 
clusive cohabitation,  could  not  be  asserted  of  the  latter. 

One  of  the  earliest  and  most  interesting  illustrations 
was  found  in  the  family  of  the  ancient  Germans.  Their 
institutions  were  homogeneous  and  indigenous ;  and  the 
people  were  advancing  toward  civilization.  Tacitus,  in 
a  few  lines,  states  their  usages  with  respect  to  marriage, 
without  giving  the  composition  of  the  family  or  defining 
its  attributes.  After  stating  that  marriages  were  strict 
among  them,  and  pronouncing  it  commendable,  he  further 
remarks,  that  almost  alone  among  barbarians  they  con- 
tended themselves  with  a  single  wife — a  very  few  ex- 
cepted, who  were  drawn  into  plural  marriages,  not  from 
passion,  but  on  account  of  their  rank.  That  the  wife  did 
not  bring  a  dowry  to  her  husband,  but  the  husband  to 
his  wife,  ....  a  caparisoned  horse,  and  a  shield, 
with  a  spear  and  sword.  That  by  virtue  of  these  gifts 
the  wife  was  espoused.^  The  presents,  in  the  nature  of 
purchasing  gifts,  which  probably  in  an  earlier  condition 
went  to  the  gentile  kindred  of  the  bride,  were  now  pre- 
sented to  the  bride 

Elsewhere  he  mentions  the  two  material  facts  in  \vhich 
the  substance  of  monogamy  is  found  ■?  firstly,  that  each 
man  was  contented  with  a  single  wife  (singulis  iixoribns 
contenti  sunt)  ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  women  lived 
fenced  around  with  chastity,  (scpics  pudicitia  agnnt).  It 
seems  probable,  from  what  is  known  of  the  condition  of 
the  family  in  dififerent  ethnical  periods,  that  this  of  the 
ancient  Germans  was  too  weak  an  organization  to  face 
alone  the  hardships  of  life ;  and,  as  a  consequence,  shelt- 

other   things    they    had    the   power    of   life    and    death— jus   vltse 
necisque. 

I    "Germanla,"  c.   18. 

i  lb.,  c.   19. 


480  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

ereil  itself  in  a  communal  household  composed  of  related 
families.  When  slavery  became  an  institution,  these 
households  would  gradually  disappear.  German  society 
was  not  far  enough  advanced  at  this  time  for  the  appear- 
ance of  a  high  type  of  the  monogamian  family. 

W'ith  respect  to  the  Homeric  Greeks^  the  family,  al- 
though monogamian,  was  low  in  type.  Husbands  required 
chastity  in  their  wives,  which  they  sought  to  enforce  by 
some  degree  of  seclusion ;  but  they  did  not  admit  the 
reciprocal  obligation  by  which  alone  it  could  be  perma- 
nently secured.  Abundant  evidence  appears  in  the  Ho- 
meric poems  that  woman  had  few  rights  men  were  bound 
to  respect.  Such  female  captives  as  were  swept  into  their 
vessels  by  the  Grecian  chiefs,  on  their  way  to  Troy,  were 
appropriated  to  their  passions  without  compunction  and 
without  restraint.  It  must  be  taken  as  a  faithful  picture 
of  the  times,  whether  the  incidents  narrated  in  the  poems 
were  real  or  fictitious.  Although  the  persons  were  cap- 
tives, it  reflects  the  low  estimate  placed  upon  woman. 
Her  dignity  was  unrecognized,  and  her  personal  rights  ' 
were  insecure.  To  appease  the  resentment  of  Achilles, 
Agamemnon  proposed,  in  a  council  of  the  Grecian  chiefs, 
to  give  to  him,  among  other  things,  seven  Lesbian  women 
excelling  in  personal  beauty,  reserved  for  himself  from 
the  spoil  of  that  city,  Briseis  herself  to  go  among  the 
number;  and  should  Troy  be  taken,  the  further  right  to 
select  twenty  Trojan  women,  the  fairest  of  all  next  to 
Argive  Helen.'  "Beauty  and  Booty"  were  the  watch- 
words of  the  Heroic  Age  unblushingly  avowed.  The 
treatment  of  their  female  captives  reflects  the  culture  of 
the  period  with  respect  to  women  in  general.  Men  having 
no  regard  for  the  parental,  marital  or  personal  rights  of 
their  enemies,  could  not  have  attained  to  any  high  con- 
ception of  their  own. 

In  describing  the  tent  life  of  the  unwedded  Achilles, 
and  of  his  friend  Patroclus,  Homer  deemed  it  befitting 
the  character  and  dignity  of  Achilles  as  a  chief  to  show, 
that  he  slept  in  the  recess  of  his  well-constructed  tent, 

i  "Iliad,"  Ix,  128, 


THE  MONOGAMIAN   FAMILY  48 1 

and  by  his  side  lay  a  female,  fair-cheeked  Diomede,  whom 
he  had  brought  from  Lesbos.  And  that  Patroclus  on  the 
other  side  reclined,  and  by  him  also  lay  fair-waisted 
Iphis,  whom  noble  Achilles  gave  him,  having  captured 
her  at  Scyros/  Such  usages  and  customs  on  the  part  of 
unmarried  as  well  as  married  men,  cited  approvingly  by 
the  great  poet  of  the  period,  and  sustained  by  public 
sentiment,  tend  to  show  that  whatever  of  monogamy 
existed,  was  through  an  enforced  constraint  upon  wives, 
while  their  husbands  were  not  monogamists  in  the  pre- 
ponderating number  of  cases.  Such  a  family  has  quite 
as  many  syndyasmian  as  monogamian  characteristics. 

The  condition  of  woman  in  the  Heroic  Age  is  supposed 
to  have  been  more  favorable,  and  her  position  in  the 
household  more  honorable  than  it  was  at  the  commence- 
ment of  civilization,  and  even  afterwards  under  their 
highest  development.  It  may  have  been  true  in  a  far 
anterior  period  before  descent  was  changed  to  the  male 
line,  but  there  seems  to  be  little  room  for  the  conjecture 
at  the  time  named.  A  great  change  for  the  better  occur- 
red, so  far  as  the  means  and  mode  of  life  were  concerned, 
but  it  served  to  render  more  conspicuous  the  real  estimate 
placed  upon  her  through  the  Later  Period  of  barbarism. 

Elsewhere  attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact,  that 
when  descent  was  changed  from  the  female  line  to  the 
male,  it  operated  injuriously  upon  the  position  and  rights 
of  the  wife  and  mother.  Her  children  were  transferred 
from  her  own  gens  to  that  of  her  husband,  and  she  for- 
feited her  agnatic  rights  by  her  marriage  without  obtain- 
ing an  equivalent.  Before  the  change,  the  members  of 
her  own  gens,  in  all  probability,  predominated  in  the 
household,  which  gave  full  force  to  the  maternal  bond, 
and  made  the  woman  rather  more  than  the  man  the  center 
of  the  family.  After  the  change  she  stood  alone  in  the 
household  of  her  husband,  isolated  from  h,er  gentile  kin- 
dred. It  must  have  weakened  the  influence  of  the  ma- 
ternal bond,  and  have  operated  powerfully  to  lower  her 
position^  and    arrest    her    progress  in    the    social    scale. 

1   "Iliad",  ix,  663. 


482  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

Among  the  prosperous  classes,  her  condition  of  enforced 
seclusion,  together  with  the  avowed  primary  object  of 
marriage,  to  beget  children  in  lawful  wedlock,  lead  to 
the  inference  that  her  position  was  less  favorable  in  the 
Heroic  Age  than  in  the  subsequent  period,  concerning 
which  we  are  much  better  informed. 

From  first  to  last  among  the  Greeks  there  was  a  prin- 
ciple of  egotism  or  studied  selfishness  at  work  among  the 
males,  tending  to  lessen  the  appreciation  of  woman, 
scarcely  found  among  savages.  It  reveals  itself  in  their 
plan  of  domestic  life,  which  in  the  higher  ranks  secluded 
the  wife  to  enforce  an  exclusive  cohabitation,  without 
admitting  the  reciprocal  obligation  on  the  part  of  her 
husband.  It  implies  the  existence  of  an  antecedent  con- 
jugal system  of  the  Turanian  type,  against  which  it  was 
designed  to  guard.  So  powerfully  had  the  usages  of 
centuries  stamped  upon  the  minds  of  Grecian  women  a 
sense  of  their  inferiority,  that  they  did  not  recover 
from  it  to  the  latest  period  of  Grecian  ascendency.  It 
was,  perhaps,  one  of  the  sacrifices  required  of  womankind 
to  bring  this  portion  of  the  human  race  out  of  the  syndy- 
asmian  into  the  monogamian  family.  It  still  remains  an 
enigma  that  a  race,  with  endowments  great  enough  to 
impress  their  mental  lif^  upon  the  world,  should  have 
remained  essentially  barbarian  in  their  treatment  of  the 
female  sex  at  the  height  of  their  civilization.  Women 
were  not  treated  with  cruelty,  nor  with  discourtesy  within 
the  range  of  the  privileges  allowed  them ;  but  their 
education  was  superficial,  intercourse  with  the  opposite 
sex  was  denied  them,  and  their  inferiority  was  inculcated 
as  a  principle,  until  it  came  to  be  accepted  as  a  fact  by 
the  women  themselves.  The  wife  was  not  the  companion 
and  the  equal  of  her  husband,  but  stood  to  him  in  the 
relation  of  a  daughter;  thus  denying  the  fundamental 
principle  of  monogamy,  as  the  institution  in  its  highest 
form  must  be  understood.  The  wnfe  is  necessarily  the 
equal  of  her  husband  in  dignity,  in  personal  rights  and  in 
social  position.  We  may  thus  discover  at  what  a  price 
of  experience  and  endurance  this  great  institution  of 
modern  society  has  been  won. 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY  483 

Our  information  is  quite. ample  and  specific  with  re- 
spect to  the  condition  of  Grecian  women  and  the  Grecian 
family  during  the  historical  period.  Becker,  with  the 
marvelous  research  for  which  his  works  are  distin- 
guished, has  collected  the  principal  facts  and  presented 
them  with  clearness  and  force.    ^    His  statements,  while 

I  The  follo^'ing  condensed  statement,  taken  from  Charicles 
("Excursus."  xii,  Longman's  ed.,  Metcalfe's  trans.),  contains  the 
material  facts  illustrative  of  the  subject.  After  expressing  the 
opinion  that  the  women  of  Homer  occupied  a  more  honorable 
position  in  the  household  than  the  ■women  of  the  historical  per- 
iod, lie  makes  the  following  statements  w^ith  respect  to  the 
condition  of  women,  particularly  at  Athens  and  Sparta,  during 
the  high  period  of  Grecian  culture.  He  observes  that  the  only 
excellence  of  which  a  woman  was  thought  capable  differed  but 
little  from  that  of  a  faithful  slave  (p.  464):  that  her  utter  want 
of  independence  led  to  her  being  considered  a  minor  all  her  life 
long;  that  there  were  neither  educational  Institutions  for  girls, 
nor  any  private  teachers  at  home,  their  ■whole  instruction  be- 
ing left  to  tlie  mothers,  and  to  nurses,  and  limited  to  spinning 
and  weaving  and  other  female  avocations  (p.  465);  that  they 
were  almost  entirely  deprived  of  that  most  essential  promoter 
of  female  culture,  the  society  of  the  other  sex;  strangers  as 
■v\-ell  as  their  nearest  relatives  being  entirely  excluded;  even 
their  fathers  and  husbands  saw  them  but  little,  the  men  being 
more  abroad  tlian  at  home,  and  when  at  home  inhabiting  their 
own  apartments;  that  the  gynaeconitis,  though  not  exactly  a 
prison,  nor  yet  a  loclied  harem,  'wv^s  still  tlie  confined  abode 
allotted  for  life  to  the  female  portion  of  the  household;  that 
it  was  particularly  the  case  with  the  ma'idens.  who  lived  in 
the  greatest  seclusion  until  their  marriage,  and,  so  to  speak, 
regularly  under  lock  and  key  (p.  4'65);  that  it  was  unbecoming 
for  a  young  wife  to  leave  the  house  witTiout  her  husband's 
knowledge,  and  in  fact  she  seldom  quitted  it;  she  was  thus 
restricted  to  the  society  of  her  female  slaves;  and  her  husband, 
if  he  clif)se  to  exercise  it,  had  the  power  of  keeping  her  in  con- 
finement (p.  466);  that  at  those  festivals,  from  which  men  were 
excluded,  the  women  had  an  opportunity  of  seeing  something 
of  each  other,  whicli  they  enjoyed  all  the  more  from  their  ordi- 
nary seclusion;  that  women  found  It  difficult  to  go  out  of  their 
houses  from  these  special  restrictions;  that  no  respectable  lady 
thought  of  going  without  the  attendance  of  a  female  slave 
assigned  to  her  for  that  purpose  by  her  husband  (p.  469);  that 
this  method  of  treatment  had  tlie  effect  of  rendering  the  girls 
excessivelj''  bashful  and  even  prudi<=;h.  and  that  even  a  married 
woman  shrunk  back  and  blushed  if  she  chanced  to  be  seen  at 
the  window  by  a  man  (p.  471);  that  marriage  in  reference  to 
the  procreation  of  children  was  considered  by  the  Greeks  a 
necessity,  enforced  bv  their  duty  to  the  gods,  to  the  state  and 
to  their  ancestors;  that  until  a  very  late  period,  at  least,  no 
higher  consideration  attached  to  matrimony,  nor  was  strong 
attachment  a  frequent  cause  of  marriage  (p.  473);  that  what- 
ever attachment  existed  sprang  from  the  soil  of  sensuality, 
and  none  other  than  sensual  love  was  acknowledged  between 
man  and  wife  (p.  473);  that  at  Athens,  and  probably  In  the 
other  Grecian  states  as  well,  the  generation  of  children  was 
considered  the  chief  end  of  marriage,  the  choice  of  the  bride 
seldom  depending  on  previous,  or  at  least  intimate  acquaint- 
rnce;  and  more  attention  was  paid  to  the  position  of  the  dam- 
sel's familv,  and  the  amount  of  her  dowry,  than  to  her  personal 
qualities;  that  such  marriages  were  unfavorable  to  the  exist- 
ence   of    real    affection,    wherefore    coldness,    indifference,    and 


484  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

they  do  not  furnish  a  complete  picture  of  the  family  of 
the  historical  period,  are  quite  sufficient  to  indicate  the 
great  difference  between  the  Grecian  and  the  modern 
civilized  family,  and  also  to  show  the  condition  of  the 
monogamian  family  in  the  early  stages  of  its  develop- 
ment. 

Among  the  facts  stated  by  Becker,  there  are  two  that 
deserve  further  notice :  first,  the  declaration  that  the 
chief  object  of  marriage  was  the  procreation  of  children 
in  lawful  wedlock ;  and  second,  the  seclusion  of  women 
to  insure  this  result.  The  two  are  intimately  connected, 
and  throw  some  reflected  light  upon  the  previous  condi- 
tion from  which  they  had  emerged.  In  the  first  place, 
the  passion  of  love  was  unknown  among  the  barbarians. 
They  are  below  the  sentiment,  which  is  the  offspring  of 
civilization  and  superadded  refinement.  The  Greeks  in 
general,  as  their  marriage  custom.s  show,  had  not  attained 
to  a  knowledge  of  this  passion,  although  there  were,  of 
course,  numerous  exceptions.  Physical  worth,  in  Grecian 
estimation,  was  the  measure  of  all  the  exellences  of  which 
the  female  sex  were  capable.  Marriage,  therefore,  was 
not  grounded  upon  sentiment,  but  upon  necessity  and 
duty.  These  considerations  are  those  which  governed 
the  Iroquois  and  the  Aztecs ;  in  fact  they  originated  in 
barbarism,  and  reveal  the  anterior  barbarous  condition 
of  the  ancestors  of  the  Grecian  tribes.     It  seems  stran2:e 


discontent  frequently  prevailed  (p.  477);  that  the  husband 
and  wife  took  their  meals  together,  provided  no  other 
men  w^ere  dining  with  the  master  of  the  house,  for  no  woman 
who  did  not  wish  to  be  accounted  a  courtesan,  would  think  even 
in  her  own  house  of  participating  in  the  symposia  of  the  men, 
or  of  being  present  when  her  husband  accidentally  brought 
home  a  friend  to  dinner  (p.  490);  that  the  province  of  the  wife 
was  the  management  of  the  entire  household,  and  the  nurture 
of  the  children— of  the  boys  until  they  were  placed  under  a 
master,  of  the  girls  until  their  marriage;  that  tiie  infidelity  of 
the  wife  was  judged  most  harshly;  and  while  it  might  be  sup- 
posed that  the  woman,  from  her  strict  seclusion,  was  generally 
precluded  from  transgressing,  thry  very  frequently  found 
means  of  deceiving  their  husbands;  that  the  law  imposed  the 
duty  of  continence  in  a  very  unequal  manner,  for  while  tlie  hus- 
band required  from  the  wife  the  strictest  fidelity,  and  visited 
with  severity  anv  dereliction  on  her  part,  he  allowed  himself 
to  have  Intercourse  with  heta^rae,  which  conduct  though  not 
exactly  approved,  did  not  meet  with  any  marked  censure,  and 
much  less  was  it  considered  any  violation  of  matrimonial  rights 
(p.  494). 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY  486 

hat  they  were  sufficient  to  answer  the  Greek  ideal  of  the 
family  relation  in  the  midst  of  Grecian  civilization.  The 
growth  of  property  and  the  desire  for  its  transmission 
to  children  was,  in  reality,  the  moving  power  which 
brought  in  monogamy  to  insure  legitimate  heirs,  and  to 
limit  their  number  to  the  actual  progeny  of  the  married 
pair.  A  knowledge  of  the  paternity  of  children  had 
begun  to  be  realized  under  the  syndyasmian  family,  from 
which  the  Grecian  form  was  evidently  derived,  but  it 
had  not  attained  the  requisite  degree  of  certamty  because 
of  the  survival  of  some  portion  of  the  ancient  jura  con- 
jugialia.  It  explains  the  new  usage  which  'made  its  ap- 
pearance in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism ;  namely,  the 
seclusion  of  wives.  An  implication  to  this  effect  arises 
from  the  circumstance  that  a  necessity  for  the  seclusion 
of  the  wife  must  have  existed  at  the  time,  and  which 
seems  to  have  been  so  formidable  that  the  plan  of  domes- 
tic life  among  the  civilized  Greeks  was,  in  reality,  a 
system  of  female  confinement  and  restraint.  Although 
the  particulars  cited  relate  more  especially  to  the  family 
among  the  prosperous  classes,  the  spirit  it  evinces  was 
doubtless  general. 

Turning  next  to  the  Roman  family,  the  condition  of 
woman  is  more  favorable,  but  her  subordination  the  same. 

She  was  treated  with  respect  in  Rome  as  in  Athens, 
but  in  the  Roman  family  her  influence  and  authority  were 
greater.  As  mater  familias  she  was  mistress  of  the  fam- 
ily. She  went  into  the  streets  freely  without  restraint  on 
the  part  of  her  husband,  and  frequented  with  the  men  the 
theaters  and  festive  banquets.  In  the  house  she  was  not 
confined  to  particular  apartments,  neither  was  she  ex- 
cluded from  the  table  of  the  men.  The  absence  of  the 
worst  restrictions  placed  upon  Grecian  females  was  favor- 
able to  the  growth  of  a  sense  of  personal  dignity  and  of 
independence  among  Roman  women.  Plutarch  remarks 
that  after  the  peace  with  the  Sabines,  effected  through  the 
intervention  of  the  Sabine  women,  many  honorable  privi- 
leges were  conferred  upon  them ;  the  men  were  to  give 
them  the  way  when  they  met  on  the  street ;  they  were  not 
to  utter  a  vulgar  word  in  the  presence  of  females,  nor 


485  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

appear  nude  before  tliem/  2',Iarriage,  however,  placed 
the  wife  in  the  power  of  her  husband  (in  manu-m  viri)  ; 
the  notion  that  she  must  remain  under  power  following, 
by  an  apparent  necessity,  her  emancipation  by  her  mar- 
riage from  paternal  power.  The  husband  treated  his  wife 
as  his  daughter,  and  not^as  his  equal.  Aloreoyer,  he  had 
the  power  of  correction,  and  of  life  and  death  in  case  of 
adultery;  but  the  exercise  of  this  last  power  seems  to 
have  been  subject  to  the  concurrence  of  the  council  of 
her  gens. 

Unlike  other  people,  the  Romans  possessed  three  forms 
of  marriage.  All  alike  placed  the  wife  in  the  hand  of  her 
husband,  and  recognized  as  the  chief  end  of  marriage 
the  procreation  of  children  in  lawful  wedlock  {liberorum 
querendorum  causa).'  These  forms  {confarrcatio, 
coeinptio,  and  usv.s)  lasted  through  the  Republic,  but  fell 
out  under  the  Empire,  when  a  fourth  form,  the  free  mar- 
riage, was  generally  adopted,  because  it  did  not  place  the 
wife  in  the  power  of  her  husband.  Divorce,  from  the 
earliest  period,  v/as  at  the  option  of  the  parties,  a  charac- 
teristic of  the  syndyasmian  family,  and  transmitted  prob- 
ably from  that  source.  They  rarely  occurred,  however, 
until  near  the  close  of  the  Republic." 

The  licentiousness  which  prevailed  in  Grecian  and 
Roman  cities  at  the  height  of  civilization  has  generally 
been  regarded  as  a  lapse  from  a  higher  and  purer  condi- 
tion of  virtue  and  morality.     Rut  the  fact  is  capable  of  a 

1  "Vit.   Rom.,"    c.    20. 

2  Quinctilian. 

3  With  respect  to  the  conjugal  fidelity  of  Roman  women 
Becker  remarks  'that  m  the  earlier  times  excesses  on  either 
side  seldom  occurred,  '  whic^i  must  be  set  down  as  a  mere  con- 
jecture; but  "when  morals  beg-an  to  deteriorate,  we  first  meet 
with  great  lapses  from  this  fidelity,  and  men  and  women  out- 
bid each  other  in  wanton  indulgence.  The  original  modesty  of 
the  v/omen  became  fradually  more  rare,  while  luxury  and  ex- 
travafrance  waxed  stroncx-r,  and  of  many  w  men  it  could  he 
said,  as  Clitipho  complained  of  Jiis  Bacchis,  (Ter.,  "Heaut  "  ii 
1.  15),  "Mea  est  petax,  procax,  mafjninoa,  sumptu'osa,  nob'jli^  "' 
Many  Roman  ladies,  to  compensate  for  the  neglect  of  their 
husbands,  had  a  lover  of  their  own.  who,  under  the  pretense  of 
being  tlie  procurator  of  the  lady,  accompanied  her  at  all  times 
As  a  natural  consequence  of  this,  celibacy  continually  in- 
creased amongst  the  men,  and  there  was  the  e-reatest  levity 
respp'-ting  divorces."^.-l-.11'-  ••'^- -,,.  .-..c  ••  ,•  p  -j  -  5_  Longman's 
ed.,   Metoalf  s  trans. 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY  487 

different,  or  at  least  of  a  modified  explanation.  They 
had  never  attained  to  a  pure  morality  in  the  intercourse 
of  the  sexes  from  which  to  decline.  Repressed  or  mod- 
erated in  the  midst  of  war  and  strife  endangering  the 
national  existence,  the  license  revived  with  peace  and 
prosperity,  because  the  moral  elements  of  society  had  not 
risen  against  it  for  its  extirpation.  This  licentiousness 
was,  in  all  probability,  the  remains  of  an  ancient  conjugal 
system,  never  fully  eradicated,  which  had  followed  down 
from  barbarism  as  a  social  taint,  and  now  expressed  its 
excesses  in  the  new  channel  of  hetserism.  If  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  had  learned  to  respect  the  equities  of  mo- 
nogamy, instead  of  secluding  their  wives  in  the  gynae- 
conitis  in  one  case,  and  of  holding  them  under  power  in 
the  other,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  society  among 
them  would  have  presented  a  very  different  aspect.  Since 
neither  one  nor  the  other  had  developed  any  higher  moral- 
ity, they  had  but  little  occasion  to  mourn  over  a  decay 
of  public  morals.  The  substance  of  the  explanation  lies 
in  the  fact  that  neither  recognized  in  its  integrity  the 
principle  of  monogamy,  which  alone  was  able  to  place 
their  respective  societies  upon  a  moral  basis.  The  pre- 
mature destruction  of  the  ethnic  life  of  these  remarkable 
races  is  due  in  no  small  measure  to  their  failure  to  de- 
velop and  utilize  the  mental,  moral  and  conservative 
forces  of  the  female  intellect,  which  were  not  less  essen- 
tial than  their  own  corresponding  forces  to  their  progress 
and  preservation.  After  a  long  protracted  experience  in 
barbarism,  during  which  they  won  the  remaining  ele- 
ments of  civilization,  they  perished  politically,  at  the  end 
of  a  brief  career,  seemingly  from  the  exhilaration  of  the 
new  life  they  had  created. 

Among  the  Hebrews,  whilst  the  patriarchal  family  in 
the  early  period  was  common  with  the  chiefs,  the  mo- 
nogamian,  into  v/hich  the  patriarchal  soon  subsided,  was 
common  among  the  people.  But  with  respect  to  the 
constitution  of  the  latter,  and  the  relations  of  husband 
and  wife  in  the  family,  the  details  are  scanty. 

Without  seeking  to  multiply  illustrations,  it  is  plain 
that  the  monogamian  family  had  grown  into  tlie  form  in 


488  ANCIENT  SOCifiTY 

which  it  appeared,  at  the  commencement  of  the  historical 
period,  from  a  lower  type ;  and  that  during  the  classical 
period  it  advanced  sensibly,  though  without  attaining  its 
highest  form.  It  evidently  sprang  from  a  previous  syndy- 
asmian  family  as  its  immediate  germ ;  and  while  improv- 
ing with  human  progress  it  fell  short  of  its  true  ideal  in 
the  classical  period.  Its  highest  known  perfection,  at 
least,  was  not  attained  until  modern  times.  The  portrait- 
ure of  society  in  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism  by  the 
early  writers  implies  the  general  practice  of  monogamy, 
but  with  attending  circumstances  indicating  that  it  was 
the  monogamian  family  of  the  future  struggling  into 
existence  under  adverse  influences,  feeble  in  vitality, 
rights  and  immunities,  and  still  environed  with  the  re- 
mains of  an  ancient  conjugal  system. 

As  the  Malayan  system  expressed  the  relationships  that 
existed  in  the  consanguine  family,  and  as  the  Turanian 
expressed  those  which  existed  in  the  punaluan,  so  the 
Aryan  expressed  those  which  existed  in  the  monogamian ; 
each  family  resting  upon  a  different  and  distinct  form 
of  marriage. 

It  cannot  be  shown  absolutely,  in  the  present  state  of 
our  knowledge,  that  the  Aryan,  Semitic  and  Uralian 
families  of  mankind  formerly  possessed  the  Turanian 
system  of  consanguinity,  and  that  it  fell  into  desuetude 
under  monogamy.  Such,  however,  would  be  the  pre- 
sumption from  the  body  of  ascertained  facts.  All  the 
evidence  points  in  this  direction  so  decisively  as  to  ex- 
clude any  other  hypothesis.  Firstly.  The  organization 
into  gentes  had  a  natural  origin  in  the  punaluan  family, 
where  a  group  of  sisters  married  to  each  other's  hus- 
bands furnished,  with  their  children  and  descendants  in 
the  female  line,  the  exact  circumscription  as  well  as  the 
body  of  a  gens  in  its  archaic  form.  The  principal 
branches  of  the  Aryan  family  were  organized  in  gentes 
when  first  known  historically,  sustaining  the  inference 
that,  when  one  undivided  people,  they  were  thus  organ- 
ized. From  this  fact  the  further  p.-esumptio..  arises  that 
they  derived  the  organization  through  a  remote  ancestry 
who  lived  in  that  same  punaluan  condition  which  gave 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY  489 

birth  to  this  remarkable  and  wide-spread  institution. 
Besides  this,  the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity  is  still 
found  connected  with  the  gens  in  its  archaic  form  among 
the  American  aborigines.  This  natural  connection  would 
remain  unbroken  until  a  change  of  social  condition  occur- 
red, Such  as  monogamy  would  produce,  having  power 
to  work  its  overthrow.  Secondly.  In  the  Aryan  system 
of  consanguinity  there  is  some  evidence  pointing  to  the 
same  conclusion.  It  may  well  be  supposed  that  a  large 
portion  of  the  nomenclature  of  the  Turanian  system 
would  fall  out  under  monogamy,  if  this  S3'stem  had  previ- 
ously prevailed  among  the  Aryan  nations.  The  applica- 
tion of  its  terms  to  categories  of  persons,  whose  relation- 
ships would  now  be  discriminated  from  each  other,  would 
compel  their  abandonment.  It  is  impossible  to  explain 
the  impoverished  condition  of  the  original  nomenclature 
of  the  Aryan  system  except  on  this  hypothesis.  All  there 
was  of  it  common  to  the  several  Aryan  dialects  are  the 
terms  for  father  and  mother,  brother  and  sister,  and  son 
and  daughter;  and  a  common  term  (San.,  naptar;  Lat., 
nepos;  Gr.,  anepsios;)  applied  indiscriminately  to  nephew, 
grandson,  and  cousin.  They  could  never  have  attained 
to  the  advanced  condition  implied  by  monogamy  with 
such  a  scanty  nomenclature  of  blood  relationships.  But 
with  a  previous  system,  analogous  to  the  Turanian,  this 
impoverishment  can  be  explained.  The  terms  for  brother 
and  sister  were  now  in  the  abstract,  and  new  creations, 
because  these  relationships  under  the  Turanian  system 
were  conceived  universally  as  elder  and  younger ;  and  the 
several  terms  were  applied  to  categories  of  persons,  in- 
cluding persons  not  own  brothers  and  sisters  In  the 
Aryan  system  this  distinction  is  laid  aside,  and  for  the 
first  time  these  relationships  were  conceived  in  the  ab- 
stract. Under  monogamy  the^ld  terms  were  inapplica- 
ble because  they  v.'ere  applied  to  collaterals.  Remains  of 
a  prior  Turanian  system,  however,  still  appear  in  the 
system  of  the  Uralian  family,  as  among  the  Hungarians, 
where  brothers  and  sisters  are  classified  into  elder  and 
younger  by  special  terms.  In  French,  also,  besides  frcrc, 
and  soeiir,  we  find  a'lnc,  elder  brother.  pCinc  and  cadet, 


4&0  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

younger  brother,  and  ahiec  and  cadctte,  elder  and  younger 
sister.  So  also  in  Sanskrit  we  find  agrajar,  and  amujar, 
and  agrajri,  and  ainnjri  for  the  same  relationships;  but 
whether  the  latter  are  from  Sanskrit  or  aboriginal 
sources,  I  am  unable  to  state.  In  the  Aryan  dialects  the 
terms  for  brother  and  sister  are  the  same  words  dialect- 
ically  changed,  the  Greek  having  substituted  adclphos  for 
phraicr.  If  common  terms  once  existed  in  these  dialects 
for  elder  and  younger  brother  and  sister,  their  previous 
application  to  categories  of  persons  would  render  them 
inapplicable,  as  an  exclusive  distinction,  to  own  brothers 
and  sisters.  The  falling  out  from  the  Aryan  system  of 
this  striking  and  beautiful  feature  of  the  Turanian 
requires  a  strong  motive  for  its  occurrence,  which  the 
previous  existence  and  abandonment  of  the  Turanian 
system  would  explain.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  any 
other.  It  is  not  supposable  that  the  Aryan  nations  were 
without  a  term  for  grandfather  in  the  original  speech,  a 
relationship  recognized  universally  among  savage  and 
barbarous  tribes;  and  yet  there  is  no  common  term  for 
this  relationship  in  the  Aryan  dialects.  In  Sanskrit  we 
have  pitameha,  \\\  Greek  pappos,  in  Latin  avus,  in  Russian 
djed,  in  Welsh  hcndad,  which  last  is  a  compound  like  the 
German  grossiadcr'2i\\<X  the  English  grandfather.  These 
terms  are  radically  different.  But  with  a  term  under  a 
previous  system,  which  was  applied  not  only  to  the 
grandfather  proper,  his  brothers,  and  his  several  male 
cousins,  but  also  to  the  brothers  and  several  male  cousins 
of  his  grandmother,  it  could  not  be  made  to  signify  a 
lineal  grandfather  and  progenitor  under  monogamy.  Its 
abandonment  would  be  apt  to  occur  in  course  of  time. 
The  absence  of  a  term  for  this  relationship  in  the  original 
speech  seems  to  find  in  this  manner  a  sufficient  explana- 
tion. Lastly.  There  is  no  term  for  uncle  and  aunt  in  the 
abstract,  and  no  special  tft-ms  for  uncle  and  aunt  on  the 
father's  side  and  on  the  mother's  side  running  through 
the  Aryan  dialects.  We  find  pitroya,  pairos.  and  patruiis 
for  paternal  uncle  in  Sanskrit,  Greek,  and  Latin ;  stryc  in 
Slavonic  for  the  same,  and  a  common  term,  cam,  ooni, 
and  ohciui  in  Anglo-Saxon,  Belgian,'  and  German,  and 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY  49l 

none  in  the  Celtic.  It  is  equally  inconceivable  that  there 
was  no  term  in  the  original  Aryan  speech  lor  maternal 
uncle,  a  relationship  made  so  conspicuous  by  the  gens 
among  barbarous  tribes.  If  their  previous  system  was 
Turanian,  there  was  necessarily  a  term  for  this  uncle, 
but  restricted  to  the  own  brothers  of  the  mother,  and  to 
her  several  male  cousins.  Its  application  to  such  a 
number  of  persons  in  a  category,  many  of  whom  could 
not  be  uncles  under  monogam}^  would,  for  the  reasons 
stated,  compel  its  abandonment.  It  is  evident  that  a 
previous  system  of  some  kind  must  have  given  place  to 
the  Aryan. 

Assuming  that  the  nations  of  the  Aryan,  Semitic  and 
Uralian  families  formerly  possessed  the  Turaniin  system 
of  consanguinity,  the  transition  from  it  to  a  descriptive 
^••'stem  was  simple  and  natural,  after  the  old  system, 
through  monogamy,  had  become  untrue  to  descents  as 
they  would  then  exist.  Every  relationship  under  mo- 
nogamy is  specific.  The  new  system,  formed  under  such 
circumstances,  would  describe  the  persons  by  means  of 
the  primary  terms  or  a  combination  of  them :  as  brother's 
son  for  nephew,  father's  brother  for  uncle,  and  father's 
brother's  son  for  cousin.  Such  was  the  original  of  the 
present  system  of  the  Aryan,  Semitic  and  Uralian  fam- 
ilies. The  generalizations  they  now  contain  were  of  later 
introduction.  All  the  tribes  possessing  the  Turanian 
system  describe  their  kindred  by  the  same  formula,  wdien 
asked  in  what  manner  one  person  was  related  to  another. 
A  descriptive  system  precisely  like  the  Aryan  always 
existed  both  with  the  Turanian  and  the  Malayan,  not  as 
a  svstem  of  consanguinity,  for  they  had  a  permanent 
system,  but  as  a  means  of  tracing  relationships.  It  is 
plain  from  the  impoverished  conditions  of  their  nomen- 
clatures that  the  Aryan,  Semitic  and  Uralian  nations 
must  have  rejected  a  prior  system  of  consanguinity  of 
some  kind.  The  conclusion,  therefore,  is  reasonable  that 
when  the  monogamian  family  became  generally  estab- 
lished these  nations  fell  back  upon  the  old  descriptive 
form,  always  in  use  under  the  Turanian  system,  and 
allowed  the  orevious  one  to  die  out  as  useless  and  untrue 


493  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

to  descents.  This  would  be  the  natural  and  obvious  mode 
of  transition  from  the  Turanian  into  the  Aryan  system ; 
and  it  explains,  in  a  satisfactory  manner,  the  origin  as 
well  as  peculiar  character  of  the  latter. 

In  order  to  complete  the  exposition  of  the  monogam- 
ian  family  in  its  relations  to  the  Aryan  system  of  con- 
sanguinity, it  will  be  necessary  to  present  this  system 
somewhat  in  detail,  as  has  been  done  in  the  two  previous 
cases. 

A  comparison  of  its  forms  in  the  several  Aryan  dialects 
shows  that  the  original  of  the  present  system  was  purely 
descriptive.'  The  Erse,  which  is  the  typical  Aryan  form, 
and  the  Esthonian,  which  is  the  typical  Uralian,  are  still 
descriptive.  In  the  Erse  the  only  terms  for  the  blood 
relationships  are  the  primary,  namely,  those  for  father 
and  mother,  brother  and  sister,  and  son  and  daughter. 
All  the  remaining  kindred  are  described  by  means  of 
these  terms,  but  commencing  in  the  reverse  order :  thus 
brother,  son  of  brother,  and  son  of  son  of  brother.  The 
Aryan  system  exhibits  the  actual  relationships  under 
monogamy,  and  assumes  that  the  paternity  of  children  is 
known. 

In  course  of  time  a  method  of  description,  materially 
different  from  the  Celtic,  was  engrafted  upon  the  new 
system ;  but  without  changing  its  radical  features.  It 
was  introduced  by  the  Roman  civilians  to  perfect  the 
framework  of  a  code  of  descents,  to  the  necessity  for 
which  we  are  indebted  for  its  existence.  Their  improved 
method  has  been  adopted  by  the  several  Aryan  nations 
among  whom  the  Roman  influence  extended.  The  Slav- 
onic system  has  some  features  entirely  peculiar  and 
evidently  of  Turanian  origin.^  To  obtain  a  knowledge^ 
historically  of  our  present  system  it  is  necessary  to  resort 
to  the  Roman,  as  perfected  by  the  civilians.^  The  addi- 
tions were  slight,  but  they  changed  the  method  of  describ- 
ing kindred.    They  consisted  chiefly,  as  elsewhere  stated, 

I     "Systems  of  Consanguinity,"  Table  I,   p.  79. 
1      "Systems   of  Consanguinity,"  etc.,  p.   40. 

3  "Pandects,"  lib.  xx'viii,  tit.  x.  and  "Institutes"  of  Justinian, 
lib.  Ill,  tit.  vl. 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY  493 

in  distinguishing  the  relationships  of  uncle  and  aunt  on 
the  father's  side  from  those  on  the  mother's  side,  with 
the  invention  of  terms  to  express  these  relationships  in 
the  concrete ;  and  in  creating  a  term  for  grandfather  to 
be  used  as  the  correlative  of  nepos.  With  these  terms 
and  the  primary,  in  connection  with  suitable  augments, 
they  were  enabled  to  systematize  the  relationships  in  the 
lineal  and  in  the  first  five  collateral  lines,  which  included 
the  body  of  the  kindred  of  every  individual.  The  Roman 
is  the  most  perfect  and  scientific  system  of  consanguin- 
ity under  monogamy  which  has  yet  appeared ;  and  it  has 
been  made  more  attractive  by  the  invention  of  an  unusual 
number  of  terms  to  express  the  marriage  relationships. 
From  it  we  may  learn  our  own  system,  which  has  adopted 
its  improvements,  better  than  from  the  Anglo-Saxon  or 
Celtic.  In  a  table,  at  the  end  of  this  chapter,  the  Latin 
and  Arabic  forms  are  placed  side  by  side,  as  representa- 
tives, respectively,  of  the  Aryan  and  Semitic  systems. 
The  Arabic  seems  to  have  passed  through  processes 
similar  to  the  Roman,  and  with  similar  results.  The 
Roman  only  will  be  explained. 

From  Ego  to  tritavus,  in  the  lineal  line,  are  six  genera- 
tions of  ascendants,  and  from  the  same  to  trinepos  are 
the  same  number  of  descendants,  in  the  description  of 
which  but  four  radical  terms  are  used.  If  it  were  desir- 
able to  ascend  above  the  sixth  ancestor,  tritavus  would 
become  a  new  starting-point  of  description ;  thus,  tritavi 
pater,  the  father  of  tritavus,  and  so  upward  to  tritavi 
tritavus,  who  is  the  twelfth  ancestor  of  Ego  in  the  lineal 
right  line,  male.  In  our  rude  nomenclature  the  phrase 
grandfather's  grandfather  must  be  repeated  six  times  to 
express  the  same  relationship,  or  rather  to  describe  the 
same  person.  In  like  manner  trinepotis  trinepos  carries 
us  to  the  twelfth  descendant  of  Ego  in  the  right  lineal 
male  line. 

The  first  collateral  line,  male,  which  commences  with 
brother,  f rater,  runs  as  follows :  Eratris  tilius,  son  of 
brother,  frafris  nepos,  grandson  of  brother,  fratris  prone- 
pos,  greatgrandson  of  brother,  and  on  to  fratris  trinepos, 
the  great-grandson  of  the  great-grandson  of  the  brother 


494  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

of  Ego.  If  it  were  necessary  to  extend  the  description 
to  the  twelfth  descendant,  fratris  trinepos  would  become 
a  second  starting-point,  from  which  we  should  have 
fratris  trinepotis  trinepos,  as  the  end  of  the  series.  By 
this  simple  method  f rater  is  made  the  root  of  descent  in 
this  line,  and  every  person  belonging  to  it  is  referred  to 
him  by  the  force  of  this  term  in  the  description ;  and  we 
know  at  once  that  each  person  thus  described  belongs  to 
the  first  collateral  line,  male.  It  is  therefore  specific  and 
complete.  In  like  manner,  the  same  line,  female,  com- 
mences with  sister,  soror,  giving  for  the  series,  sororis 
aiia,  sister's  daughter,  sororis  neptis,  sister's  grand- 
daughter, sororis  proneptis,  sister's  great-granddaughter, 
and  on  to  sororis  triiTeptis,  her  sixth  descendant,  and  to 
sororis  trineptis  trineptis,  her  twelfth  descendant.  While 
the  two  branches  of  the  first  collateral  line  originate,  in 
strictness,  in  the  father,  pater,  the  common  bond  of  con- 
nection between  them,  yet,  by  making  the  brother  and 
sister  the  root  of  descent  in  the  description,  not  only  the 
line  but  its  two  branches  are  maintained  distinct,  and  the 
relationship  of  each  person  to  Ego  is  specialized.  This 
is  one  of  the  chief  excellences  of  the  system,  for  it  is 
carried  into  all  the  lines,  as  a  purely  scientific  method 
of  distinguishing  and  describing  kindred. 

The  second  collateral  line,  male,  on  the  father's  side, 
commences  with  father's  brother,  patruus,  and  is  com- 
posed of  him  and  his  descendants.  Each  person,  by  the 
terms  used  to  describe  him,  is  referred  with  entire  pre- 
cision to  his  proper  position  in  the  line,  and  his  relation- 
ship is  indicated  specifically ;  thus,  patrui  filiiis,  son  of 
paternal  uncle,  patrui  iiepos,  grandson  of,  and  patrui 
proncpos,  great-grandson  of  paternal  imcle,  and  on  to 
patrui  trinepos,  the  sixth  descendant  of  patruus.  If  it 
became  necessary  to  extend  this  line  to  the  twelfth  gen- 
eration we  should  have;  after  passing  through  the  inter- 
mediate degrees,  patrui  trinepotis  trinepos,  who  is  the 
great-granclson  of  the  great-grandson  of  patrui  trinepos, 
the  great-grandson  of  the  great-grandson  of  patruus.  It 
will  be  observed  that  the  term  for  cousin  is  rejected  in 
the  formal  method  used  in  the  Pandects.    He  is  described 


THE  MONOGAMIAN   FAMILY  495 

as  patriii  Ulius,  but  Jie  was  also  called  a  brother  patrual, 
fratcr  patruclis,  and  among  the  people  at  large  by  the 
common  term  consobrinus,  from  which  our  term  cousin 
is  derived/  The  second*  collateral  line,  female,  on  the 
father's  side,  commences  with  father's  sister,  amita,  pater- 
nal aunt;  and  her  descendants  are  described  according  to 
the  same  general  plan ;  thus,  ainitac  Ulia,  paternal  aunt's 
daughter,  amitac  neptis,  paternal  aunt's  granddaughter, 
and  on  to  aniitae  frineptis,  and  to  amifae  trineptis  tf'in- 
eptis.  In  this  branch  of  the  line  the  special  term  for  this 
cousin,  amitina,  is  also  set  aside  for  the  descriptive  phrase 
amitae  filia. 

In  like  manner  the  third  collateral  line,  male,  on  the 
father's  side  commences  \vith  grandfather's  brother,  who 
is  styled  patrnns  ma  gnus,  or  great  paternal  uncle.  At 
this  point  in  the  nomenclature,  special  terms  fail,  and 
compounds  are  resorted  to^  although  the  relationship  it- 
self is  in  the  concrete.  It  is  evident  that  this  relation- 
ship was  not  discriminated  until  a  comparatively  modern 
period.  No  existing  language,  so  far  as  the  inquiry  has 
been  extended,  possesses  an  original  term  for  this  rela- 
tionship, although  without  it  this  line  cannot  be  described 
except  by  the  Celtic  method.  If  he  were  called  simply 
grandfather's  brother  the  phrase  would  describe  a  person, 
leaving  the  relationship  to  implication ;  but  if  he  is  styled 
a  great-uncle,  it  expresses  a  relationship  in  the  concrete. 
With  the  first  person  in  this  branch  of  the  line  thus  made 
definite,  all  of  his  descendants  are  referred  to  him,  by  the 
form  of  the  description,  as  the  root  of  descent ;  and  the 
line,  the  side,  the  particular  branch,  and  the  degree  of 
the  relationship  of  each  person  are  at  (jnce  fully  ex- 
pressed. This  line  also  may  be  extended  to  the  twelfth 
descendant,  which  would  give  for  the  series  patrui  iiiagni 
HUiis,  son  of  the  paternal  great-uncle,  patrui  magni  nepos. 
and  on  to  patrui  magni  trinepos,  and  ending  with  patrui 


I  Item  fratres  patruples,  sorores  patrueles,  id  est  qui  qutc-ve 
ex  duobus  fratribus  proger.erantur;  item  consobrini  conso- 
brinae,  id  est  qui  quse-veex  duobus  sororibus  nascuntur  (quasi 
coasorini) ;  item  amitini  amitinse,  id  est  qui  qute-ve  ex  fratre 
e:'.  sorore  propag'antur;  sed  fere  vulg'os  istos  omnes  communi 
appellatlone   consobrinus   vccat.— "Pand,,"    lib.    xxxviii,    tit,    x. 


496  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

magni  trincpotis  trinepos.  The  same  line,  female,  com- 
mences with  grandfather's  sister,  amita  magna,  great 
paternal  aunt ;  and  her  descendants  are  similarly  de- 
scribed. , 

The  fourth  and  fifth  collateral  lines,  male,  on  the 
father's  side,  commence,  respectively,  with  great-grand- 
father's brother,  who  is  styled  patruus  major,  greater  pa- 
ternal uncle,  and  with  great-great-grandfather's  brother, 
patruus  maximns,  greatest  paternal  uncle.  In  extending 
the  series  we  have  in  the  fourth  patrui  majoris  filius,  and 
on  to  patrui  majoris  trinepos;  and  in  the  fifth  patrui 
maximi  iilius,  and  on  to  patrui  maximi  trinepos.  The 
female  branches  commence,  respectively,  with  amita 
major,  greater,  and  amita  maxima,  greatest  paternal 
aunt ;  and  the  description  of  persons  in  each  follows  in 
the  same  order. 

Thus  far  the  lines  have  been  on  the  father's  side  only. 
The  necessity  for  independent  terms  for  uncle  and  aunt 
on  the  mother's  side  to  complete  the  Roman  method  of 
description  is  now  apparent ;  the  relatives  on  the  mother's 
side  being  equally  numerous,  and  entirely  distinct.  These 
terms  were  found  in  avunculus,  maternal  uncle,  and 
matcrtcra,  maternal  aunt.  In  describing  the  relatives  on 
the  mother's  side,  the  lineal  female  line  is  substituted  for 
the  male,  but  the  first  collateral  line  remains  the  same.  In 
the  second  collateral  line,  male,  on  the  mother's  side,  we 
have  for  the  series  avunculus,  maternal  uncle,  ammculi 
iilius,  avunculi  nepos,  and  on  to  avunculi  trinepos,  and 
ending  with  avunculi  trine potis  trinepos.  In  the  female 
branch,  uiatertera,  maternal  aunt,  materterx  filia,  and  on 
as  before.  Tl^e  third  collateral  line,  male  and  female, 
commence,  respectively,  with  avunculus  magnus,  and  ma- 
tcrtcra magna,  great  maternal  uncle  and  aunt;  the  fourth 
with  avunculus  major,  and  matcrtera  major,  greater  ma- 
ternal uncle,  and  aunt ;  and  the  fifth  with  avunculus  maxi- 
mus,  and  matcrtcra  maxima,  greatest  maternal  uncle,  and 
aunt.  The  descriptions  of  persons  in  each  line  and  branch 
are  in  form  corresponding  with  those  previously  given. 

Since  the  first  five  collateral  lines  embrace  as  wide  a 
circle  of  kindred  as  it  was  necessary  to  include  for  the 


THE  MONOGAMIAN   FAMILY  497 

practical  objects  of  a  code  of  descents,  the  ordinary  for- 
mula of  the  Roman  civilians  did  not  extend  beyond  this 
number. 

In  terms  for  the  marriage  relationships,  the  Latin  lan- 
guage is  remarkably  opulent,  whilst  our  mother  English 
betrays  its  poverty  by  the  use  of  such  unseemly  phrases 
as  father-in-law,  son-in-law,  brother-in-law,  step-father, 
and  step-son,  to  express  some  twenty  very  common,  and 
very  near  relationships,  nearly  all  of  which  are  provided 
with  special  terms  in  the  Latin  nomenclature. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  pursue  further  the  details 
of  the  Roman  system  of  consanguinity.  The  principal  and 
most  important  of  its  features  have  been  presented,  and 
in  a  manner  sufficiently  special  to  render  the  whole  in- 
telligible. For  simplicity  of  method,  felicity  of  descrip- 
tion, distinctness  of  arrangement  by  lines  and  branches, 
and  beauty  of  nomenclature,  it  is  incomparable.  It  stands 
in  its  method  pre-eminently  at  the  head  of  all  the  systems 
of  relationship  ever  perfected  by  man,  and  furnishes  one 
of  many  illustrations  that  to  whatever  the  Roman  mind 
had  occasion  to  give  organic  form,  it  placed  once  for  all 
upon  a  solid  foundation. 

No  reference  has  been  made  to  the  details  of  the  Arabic 
system ;  but,  as  the  two  forms  are  given  in  the  Table,  the 
explanation  made  of  one  will  suffice  for  the  other,  to 
which  it  is  equally  applicable. 

With  its  additional  special  terms,  and  its  perfected 
method,  consanguinei  are  assumed  to  be  connected,  ;n 
virtue  of  their  descent,  through  married  pairs,  from  com- 
mon ancestors.  They  arrange  themselves  in  a  lineal  and 
several  collateral  lines ;  and  the  latter  are  perpetually 
divergent  from  the  former.  These  are  necessary  conse- 
quences of  monogamy.  The  relationship  of  each  person 
to  the  central  Ego  is  accurately  defined  and,  except  as 
to  those  who  stand  in  an  identical  relationship,  is  kept 
distinct  from  every  other  by  means  of  a  special  term  or 
descriptive  phrase.  It  also  implies  the  certainty  of  the 
parentage  of  every  individual,  which  monogamy  alone 
could  assure.  ^Moreover,  it  dcscril^es  the  rcln'Lionships  in 
the  monogamian  family  as  they  actually  exist.     Nothing 


498  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

can  be  plainer  than  that  this  form  of  marriage  made 
this  form  of  the  family,  and  that  the  latter  created  this 
system  of  consanguinity.  The  three  are  necessary  parts 
of  a  whole  where  the  descriptive  system  is  exclusive. 
What  we  know  by  direct  observation  to  be  true  with 
respect  to  the  monogamian  family,  its  law  of  marriage 
and  its  system  of  consanguinity,  has  been  shown  to  be 
equally  true  with  respect  to  the  punaluan  family,  its  law 
of  marriage  and  its  system  of  consanguinity ;  and  not 
less  so  of  the  consanguine  family,  its  form  of  marriage 
and  its  system  of  consanguinity.  Any  of  these  three 
parts  being  given,  the  existence  of  the  other  two  with 
it,  at  some  one  time,  may  be  deduced  with  certainty.  If 
any  difference  could  be  made  in  favor  of  the  superior 
materiality  of  any  one  of  the  three,  the  preference  would 
belong  to  systems  of  consanguinity.  They  have  crystal- 
lized the  evidence  declaring  the  marriage  law  and  the 
form  of  the  family  in  the  relationship  of  every  individual 
person ;  thus  preserving  not  only  the  highest  evidence  of 
the  fact,  but  as  many  concurring  declarations  thereto  as 
there  are  members  united  by  the  bond  of  consanguinity. 
It  furnishes  a  test  of  the  high  rank  of  a  domestic  institu- 
tion, which  must  be  supposed  incapable  of  design  to 
pervert  the  truth,  and  which,  therefore,  may  be  trusted 
implicitly  as  to  whatever  it  necessarily  teaches.  Finally- 
it  is  with  respect  to  systems  of  consanguinity  that  out 
information  is  most  complete. 

The  five  successive  forms  of  the  famil\-,  mentioned  a* 
the  outset,  have  now  been  presented  and  explained,  with 
such  evidence  of  their  existence,  and  such  particulars 
of  their  structure  as  our  present  knowledge  furnishes. 
Although  the  treatment  of  each  has  been  general,  it  ha? 
touched  the  essential  facts  and  attributes,  and  established 
the  main  proposition,  that  the  family  commenced  in  the 
consanguine,  and  grew,  through  successive  stages  of 
development,  into  the  monogamian.  There  is  nothing 
in  this  general  conclusion  which  might  not  have  been 
anticipated  from  a  priori  considerations;  but  the  difficul- 
ties and  the  hindrances  whicli  obstructed  its  growth  are 
seen  to  have  been  far  greater  than  would  have  been  sup- 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY  499 

posed.  As  a  growth  with  the  ages  of  time,  it  has  shared 
in  all  the  vicissitudes  of  human  experience,  and  now 
reveals  more  expressively,  perhaps,  than  any  other  in- 
stitution, the  graduated  scale  of  human  progress  from 
the  abyss  of  primitive  savagery,  through  barbarism,  to 
civilization.  It  brings  us  near  to  the  daily  life  of  the 
human  family  in  the  different  epochs  of  its  progressive 
development,  indicating,  in  some  measure,  its  hardships, 
its  struggles  and  also  its  victories,  when  different  periods 
are  contrasted.  We  should  value  the  great  institution  of 
the  family,  as  it  now  exists,  in  some  proportion  to  the 
expenditure  of  time  and  of  intelligence  in  its  production ; 
and  receive  it  as  the  richest  legacy  transmitted  to  us  by 
ancient  society,  because  it  embodies  and  records  the 
highest  results  of  its  varied  and  prolonged  experience. 

When  the  fact  is  accepted  that  the  family  has  passed 
through  four  successive  forms,  and  is  now  in  a  fifth, 
the  question  at  once  arises  whether  this  form  can  be 
permanent  in  the  future.  The  only  answer  that  can  be 
given  is,  that  it  must  advance  as  society  advances,  and 
change  as  society  changes,  even  as  it  has  done  in  the 
past.  It  is  the  creature  of  the  social  system,  and  will 
reflect  its  culture.  As  the  monogamian  family  has  im- 
proved greatlv  since  the  commencement  of  civilization, 
and  verv  sensibly  in  modern  times,  it  is  at  least  suppos- 
able  that  it  is  capable  of  still  further  improvement  until 
the  equality  of  the  sexes  is  attained.  Should  the  mon- 
ogamian family  in  the  distant  ftiture  fail  to  answer  the 
requirements  of  society,  assuming  the  continuous  prog- 
ress of  civilization,  it  is  impossible  to  predict  the  nature 
■i^f  its  successor. 


600 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY 


I 


2 


1^ 

5  » 


O  3  OS 


11^ 

-  e  5 


■5  =  =» 


^  t   3   O   3  O   o 
*S  C   rt   C   fl  C  3 

a;  :  •:    G^"oZ"o"^  o  «'o  o>. 
0-5  o  w  o  l!  2  S  o  S-  ?-o  O'fi  oi2  « 

2  ^  2  «■  ^  g  i  g  S  g  3  el  8 


:sj 


c  e  e  S  o  c_s^      WW  «u  ftoo  -  o  ^  o  -^  S- 


'o'E'Sil  °"'°'°  s'o'S'&l 

5=;l  3  s  «  §  «.2  §^ "  = 


S2 
S"3 


O  00 


.       .  2 

|-s.|jlil.^5 


3.; 
c3i 


if -3 


A&&(>«aD<cZcaa 


■'iimii 


l&   £££££        828 


9 
3  .9 


;3  0  "§  «  3  p  G  ^ . 

^  E^ll:  ,  .  :  ,  .-  = 
£=  =  -=111    J 


t||  1-3 


■SS-S^ 


SS: 


THE  MONOGAMIAN   FAMILY 


501 


g^:::)st:      |^::s:s:::       g^jisjss:      g^:zs:tsti 

JS  S  'A  "e 

I         |:.,::  =  ,=       i:  ,  3  ,  =  :  :  :      |,  :  :  z  :  :  :  :      |,  ::,:,,  , 

h         -3  "3  1  .— I  •  2 

^       "  «  *s  —         3  ^ 

If  r      I  fllr       I  fil^       I  li-ia       |  li-i 

V"^     -2  e>.^-oZ^'3£  "^-^^Z-ooi         ^^^^Z'S'!!^      'wZ^-o' 

„o      c  cc'reC^  =  ='^      co'St-Oc^s  S='oc<'c5n^      o''»  =  °  =  g 

55     ^         S5^0£j-o_-o     i^S-ogSS-o-         ^t-oSEJ'^-s^     -t-HSCS-d 

il  il illliliiy ill! ililllslllili-sililll 2-314 

,       -s         .,.•■••■•» 

-a     ■    -ii     ■    1    •a.-"3ii     •    :=     •    J|l     ■    I    =-1^:5 

^ll  §  y  il^nlll  ill  ite Jill  U  linuB^iMMAM 


g:  :  : 


*v.     --^ 


■a 


i  Ji  w        « 


1J- 

2  "-■'  r 


1 


§  -     il 

^°-    ^siiiisiiSSaQ.  .^^^^^^^  °-°--^'-?  6  5 

|_       |h .2  3.  :::::::    g=:  :;:::::   §1=  '''  =  =  " 

"  ■       I-      -2         ■      •■?  •      -S         ~~1~      1"      ^      1~      ~l 

■  fi  ..22-s,.5c-g,..|3-&..|S-5, 

■g-gg    *=■==■=  ^  2?'=*    =  ■="=  ='S  M  ".'"  .•'=■=^5  2  2  3'!!'  ■=  ="=S  32  23"° 

i32Sk."wSSi-S"3MM3l-       '■'^SS'S'oBlMci"     SuSS-O-OMMMoi    '^SS-O-oSlMM* 

i     ;3|2=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =    11=  =  =  '  =  -  =  11=  =  =  =   =   =  =  =  11=  =  ^  =  =  ^  :  = 

|:  =a|=  =  =  =  '  =  "  =  1=  ^  =  =  =  '  =  '  =  1=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  f  '  =  ''  =  ' 


603 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY 


^§         6- 

•St   "ss i 

tea.     gc 
o  e  «      ; 
•5     8S^t-3 

B  C   O   C  ~   3   3 

&SSS&-S-S 


:   o  c  -  - 


^4 


3  3 

■o-a 

"o  go 

III 


ire 
'  «  o  3  : 


g  =  3  ; 


••aC 


J4 


1iil!fiJli||ll  .-u^ 

co-g.S.S|2<:c'S2.S2     :2|e'^7 

^i  e.|.i|2 jiiS.ll.s    ieis^ 


1= 


§: 


2  i     "so  s 


v.'o  Si* 


5&= 


Bo«"''=^§"''a5^33^"     S      = 
wf  t&GrS  uuoeS  MuGrS  Gou     S.S  u 


I  ■«!=   '58=    ^8-S 


SJf::    &go      ,6 


8.8.' 


2i52: 

Hi 


c  c  "   *    C  y 

gg         23 


fl 


C2 


S"^      « J 


eaji 


-3   «      •  3-3   =■£.'•   «    ?>    -J    .   ^._ 


i:  :  1  :  :  : 


:rr::i) 


•  V  C  «i 

::i«::::5::;-k. •:!...=  : 

I  s  ~3 


THE  MONOGAMIAN  FAMILY  603 

'    1  "t  ^  ^  -S    §   I    i    2    !  I         J' 

s  I 

11     1  ^  •§  ,  I  ^ 

I  !  1  ^  -M  I  I  i  a 

5    e    a   fi  =-2    I    s    s   .|  g   5  I  •'i   i    a   J 

^MIJ  1 1  ill  i  1 1 1  m  tiiiiiiMi 


?  r?  1  ?  e  f  ^^jg-jfr^wfl 


504 


ANCIENT   SOCIETY 


llt'lllllld 


'■Bf  Is 


ilifil; 


■■llliliilll 


'lis  S.I 


ill 


■  ■  Jliil  ■  III 

S' '  =  m  r  ill 

19  22 ICS.  f"  <>Q-nm»«oi» 


CHAPTER  VI 

SEQUENCE  OF  INSTITUTIONS  CONNECTED  WITH  THE  FAMILY 

It  remains  to  place  in  their  relations  the  customs  and 
institutions  which  have  contributed  to  the  growth  of  the 
family  through  successive  forms.  Their  articulation  in 
a  sequence  is  in  part  hypothetical ;  but  there  is  an  in- 
timate and  undoubted  connection  between  them. 

This  sequence  embodies  the  principal  social  and  domes- 
tic institutions  which  have  influenced  the  growth  of  the 
family  from  the  consanguine  to  the  monogamian.^  They 
are  to  be  understood  as  originating  in  the  several 
branches  of  the  human  family  substantially  in  the  order 
named,  and  as  existing  generally  in  these  branches  while 
in  the  corresponding  status. 
First  Stage  of  Sequence. 

I.  Promiscuous  Intercourse. 
II.  Intermarriage  of  Brothers  and  Sisters,  ouni  and 
collateral,  in  a  Group:  Giving, — 
III.  The  Consanguine  Family.      (First  Stage   of   the 

Family) :  Giving, — 
I\\  The  Malayan  System  of  Consanguinity  and  Affin- 
ity. 
Second  Stage  of  Sequence. 

V.  The  Organization  upon  the  basis  of  Sex,  and  the 
Punalua)i  Custom,  tending  to  check  the  inter- 
marriage of  brothers  and  sisters:  Giving, — 
VI.  The  Punaluan  Family.  (Second  Stage  of  the  Fam- 
ily) :  Giving, — 


I    It    Is    a   revision    of   the    sequence   presented    In    "Systems  of 
Consang-ulnlty."  etc.,   p.  480. 

505 


506  ANCIENT   SOCIETir 

VII.  The  Organization   into    Gentes,    zdiich    excluded 
brothers  and  sisters  from  the  marriage  relation: 
Giving, — 
VIIL  The  Turanian  and  Ganowdnian  System  of  Consan- 
guinity and  Affinity. 
Third  Stage  of  Sequence. 

IX.  Increasing  Influence  of  Gentile  Organization  and 
improvement  in  the  arts  of  life,  advancing  a 
portion  of  mankind  into  the  Lower  Status  of 
barbarism :  Gizing. — 
X.  Marriage  between  Single  Pairs,  but  ivithout  an 
exclusive  cohabitation  :  Giving, — 
XI.  The  Syndyasmian  Family.     {Third  Stage  of  the 

Family.) 
Fourth  Stage  of  Sequence. 
XII.  Pastoral  life  on  the  plains  in  limited  areas:  Civ- 

XIII.  The  Patriarchal  Family.  (Fourth,  but  exceptional 

Stage  of  the  Family.) 
Fifth  Stage  of  Sequence. 

XIV.  Rise  of  Property,  and  settlement  of  lineal  succes- 

sion to  estates:  Giving, — 
XV.  The  Monogamian  Family.     {Fifth  Stage  of  the 

Family)  :  Giving, — 
XVI.  The  Aryan,  Semitic  and  Uralian  system  of  Con- 

sangtiinity  and  Affinity;  and  causing  the  over- 

throiv  of  the  Turanian. 
A  few  observations  upon  the  foregoing  sequence  of 
customs  and  institutions,  for  the  purpose  of  tracing  their 
connection  and  relations,  will  close  this  discussion  of  the 
growth  of  the  family. 

Like  the  successive  geological  formations,  the  tribes  of 
mankind  may  be  arranged,  according  to  their  relative 
conditions,  into  successive  strata.  When  thus  arranged, 
they  reveal  with  some  degree  of  certainty  the  entire 
range  of  human  progress  from  savagery  to  civilization. 
A  thorough  study  of  each  successive  stratum  will  devel- 
op whatever  is  special  in  its  culture  and  characteristics, 
and  yield  a  definite  conception  of  the  whole,  in  their  dif- 
ferences and  in  their  relations.     When  this  has  been  ac- 


SEQUENCE   OF    INSTITUTIONS  507, 

eomplished,  the  successive  stages  of  human  progress  will 
be  definitely  understood.  Time  has  been  an  important 
factor  in  the  formation  of  these  strata;  and  it  must  be 
measured  out  to  each  ethnical  period  in  no  stinted  meas- 
ure. Each  period  anterior  to  civilization  necessarily 
represents  many  thousands  of  years. 

Promiscuous  Intercourse.  —  This  expresses  the  lowest 
conceivable  stage  of  savagery — it  represents  the  bottom 
of  the  scale.  ^lan  in  this  condition  could  scarcely  be 
distinguished  from  the  mute  animals  by  whom  he  was 
surrounded.  Ignorant  of  marriage,  and  living  probably 
in  a  horde,  he  was  not  only  a  savage,  but  possessed  a 
feeble  intellect  and  a  feebler  moral  sense.  His  hope  of 
elevation  rested  in  the  vigor  of  his  passions,  for  he  seems 
always  to  have  been  courageous ;  in  the  possession  of 
hands  physically  liberated,  and  in  the  improvable  char- 
acter of  his  nascent  mental  and  moral  powers.  In  cor- 
roboration of  this  view,  the  lessening  volume  of  the 
skull  and  its  increasing  animal  characteristics,  as  we 
recede  from  civilized  to  savage  man,  deliver  some  testi- 
mony concerning  the  necessary  inferiority  of  primitive 
man.  Were  it  possible  to  reach  this  earliest  representa- 
tive of  the  species,  we  must  descend  very  far  below  the 
lowest  savage  now  living  upon  the  earth.  The  ruder 
flint  implements  found  over  parts  of  the  earth's  surface, 
and  not  used  by  existing  savages,  attest  the  extreme 
rudeness  of  his  condition  after  he  had  emerged  from  his 
primitive  habitat,  and  commenced,  as  a  fisherman,  his 
spread  over  continental  areas.  It  is  with  respec  'o  this 
primitive  savage,  and  with  respect  to  him  alone,  ..lac  pro- 
miscuity may  be  inferred. 

It  will  be  asked  whether  any  evidence  exists  of  this 
antecedent  condition.  As  an  answer,  it  may  be  remarked 
that  the  consanguine  family  and  the  Malayan  system  of 
consanguinity  presuppose  antecedent  promiscuity.  It 
was  limited,  not  unlikely,  to  the  period  when  mankind 
were  frugivorous  and  within  their  primitive  habitat,  since 
its  continuance  would  have  been  improbable  after  they 
became  fishermen  and  commenced  their  spread  over  the 
earth    in    dependence    upon    food    artificially    acquired. 


608  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

Consanguine  groups  would  then  form,  with  intermar- 
riage in  the  group  as  a  necessity,  resulting  in  the  forma- 
tion of  consanguine  families.  At  all  events,  the  oldest 
form  of  society  which  meets  us  in  the  past  through 
deduction  from  systems  of  consanguinity  is  this  family. 
It  would  be  in  the  nature  of  a  compact  on  the  part  of 
several  males  for  the  joint  subsistence  of  the  group,  and 
for  the  defense  of  their  common  wives  against  the 
violence  of  society.  In  the  second  place,  the  consan- 
guine family  is  stamped  with  the  marks  of  this  supposed 
antecedent  state.  It  recognized  promiscuity  within  de- 
fined limits,  and  those  not  the  narrowest,  and  it  points 
through  its  organism  to  a  worse  condition  against  which 
it  interposed  a  shield.  Between  the  consanguine  family 
and  the  horde  living  in  promiscuity,  the  step,  though  a 
long  one,  does  not  require  an  intermediate  condition.  If 
such  existed,  no  known  trace  of  it  remains.  The  solution 
of  this  question,  however,  is  not  material.  It  is  sufficient, 
for  the  present  at  least,  to  have  gained  the  definite  start- 
ing-point far  down  in  savagery  marked  out  by  the  con- 
sanguine family,  which  carries  back  our  knowledge  of 
the  early  condition  of  mankind  well  toward  the  primitive 
period. 

There  were  tribes  of  savages  and  even  of  barbarians 
known  to  the  Greeks  and  Romans  who  are  represented 
as  living  in  promiscuity.  Among  them  were  the  Auseans 
of  North  Africa,  mentioned  by  Herodotus,'  the  Gara- 
mantes  of  .Ethiopia,  mentioned  by  Pliny,*  and  the  Celts 
of  I*"^'  "id,  mentioned  by  Strabo.^  The  latter  repeats  a 
sin".  ;.  atement  concerning  the  Arabs.*  It  is  not  prob- 
able that  ati;  people  within  the  time  of  recorded  human 
observation  have  lived  in  a  state  of  promiscuous  inter- 
course like  the  gregarious  animals.  The  perpetuation  of 
such  a  people  from  the  infancy  of  mankind  would  evi- 
dently have  been  impossible.  The  cases  cited,  and  many 
others  that  might  be  added,  are  better  explained  as  aris- 

I   Lib.   Iv,   c.   180. 

a  Garamantes     matrimonium     exsortes    passim     cum     femlnes 
de^unt.— "Nat.   Hist.,"   lib.  v.  c.   8. 

3  Lib.   Iv.   c.   5,   par.   4. 

4  Lib.   xvi,  c.   4,  par.  25. 


SEQUENCE    OF   INSTITUTIONS  509 

ing  under  the  punaluan  family,  which,  to  the  foreign  ob- 
server, with  Umited  means  of  observation,  would  afford 
the  external  indications  named  by  these  authors.  Promis- 
cuity may  be  deduced  theoretically  as  a  necessary  condi- 
tion antecedent  to  the  consanguine  family ;  but  it  lies 
concealed  in  the  misty  antiquity  of  mankind  beyond  the 
reach  of  positive  knowledge. 

II.  Intermarriage  of  Brothers  and  Sisters,  ozim  and 
collateral,  in  a  Group. — In  this  form  of  marriage  the 
family  had  its  birth.  It  is  the  root  of  the  institution.  The 
Malayan  system  of  consanguinity  affords  conclusive 
evidence  of  its  ancient  prevalence.  With  the  ancient 
existence  of  the  consanguine  family  established,  the  re- 
maining forms  can  be  explained  as  successive  deriva- 
tions from  each  other.  This  form  of  marriage  gives 
(III.)  the  consanguine  family  and  (IV.)  the  Malayan 
system  of  consanguinity,  Avhich  disposes  of  the  third  and 
fourth  members  of  the  sequence.  This  family  belongs 
to  the  Lower  Status  of  savagery. 

V.  The  Punaluan  Custom.  —  In  the  Australian  male 
and  female  classes  united  in  marriage,  punaluan  groups 
are  found.  Among  the  Hawaiians,  the  same  group  is 
also  found,  with  the  marriage  custom  it  expresses.  It 
has  prevailed  among  the  remote  ancestors  of  all  the 
tribes  of  mankind  who  now  possess  or  have  possessed 
the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity,  because  they  must 
have  derived  it  from  punaluan  ancestors.  There  is 
seeminglv  no  other  explanation  of  the  origin  of  this 
system.  Attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that  the 
punaluan  family  included  the  same  persons  found  in  the 
previous  consanguine,  with  the  exception  of  own  broth- 
ers and  sisters,  who  were  theoretically  if  not  in  every 
case  excluded.  It  is  a  fair  inference  that  the  punaluan 
custom  worked  its  way  into  general  adoption  through 
a  discovery  of  its  beneficial  influence.  Out  of  punaluan 
marriage  came  (\T.)  the  punaluan  family,  which  dis- 
poses of  the  sixth  member  of  the  sequence.  This  family 
originated,  probably,  in  the  Middle  Status  of  savagery. 

\''II.  The  Organisation  into  Gcntes. — The  position  of 
this  institution  in  the  sequence  is  the  only  question  here 


510  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

to  be  considered.  Among  the  Australian  classes,  (-he 
punaluan  group  is  found  on  a  broad  and  systematic 
scale.  The  people  are  also  organized  in  gentes.  Here 
the  punaluan  family  is  older  than  the  gens,  because  it 
rested  upon  the  classes  which  preceded  the  gentes.  The 
Australians  also  have  the  Turanian  system  of  consan- 
guinity, for  which  the  classes  laid  the  foundation  by  ex- 
cluding own  brothers  and  sisters  from  the  punaluan 
group  united  in  marriage.  They  were  born  members  of 
classes  who  could  not  intermarry.  Among  the  Hawai- 
ians,  the  punaluan  family  was  unable  to  create  the  Tu- 
ranian system  of  consanguinity.  Own  brothers  and 
sisters  were  frequently  involved  in  the  punaluan  group, 
which  the  custom  did  not  prevent,  although  it  tended  to 
do  so.  This  system  requires  both  the  punaluan  family 
and  the  gentile  organization  to  bring  it  into  existence. 
It  follows  that  the  latter  came  in  after  and  upon  the 
former.  In  its  relative  order  it  belongs  to  the  Middle 
Status  of  savagery. 

VIII.  and  IX.  These  have  been  sufficiently  considered. 

X.  and  XI.  Marriage  between  Sijigle  Pairs,  and  the 
Syndyasmian  Family. — After  mankind  had  advanced  out 
of  savagery  and  entered  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism, 
their  condition  was  immensely  improved.  More  than 
half  the  battle  for  civilization  was  won.  A  tendency  to 
reduce  the  groups  of  married  persons  to  smaller  propor- 
tions must  have  begun  to  manifest  itself  before  the  close 
of  savagery,  because  the  syndyasmian  family  became  a 
constant  phenomenon  in  the  Lower  Status  of  barbarism. 
The  custom  which  led  the  more  advanced  savage  to  rec- 
ognize one  among  a  number  of  wives  as  his  principal 
wife,  ripened  in  time  into  the  practice  of  pairing,  and  in 
making  this  wife  a  companion  and  associate  in  the 
maintenance  of  a  family.  With  the  growth  of  the  pro- 
pensity to  pair  came  an  increased  certainty  of  the  patern- 
ity of  children.  But  the  husband  could  put  away  his  wife, 
and  the  wife  could  leave  her  husband,  and  each  seek  a 
new  mate  at  pleasure.  Moreover,  the  man  did  not  rec- 
ognize, on  his  part,  the  obligations  of  the  marriage  tie, 
and  therefore  had  no  right  to  expect  its  recognition  by 


SEQUENCE  OP  INSTITUTIONS  511 

his  wife.  The  old  conjugal  system,  now  reduced  to 
narrower  limits  by  the  gradual  disappearance  of  the 
punaluan  groups,  still  environed  the  advancing  family, 
which  it  was  to  follow  to  the  verge  of  civilization.  Its 
reduction  to  zero  was  a  condition  precedent  to  the  in- 
troduction of  monogamy.  It  finally  disappeared  in  the 
new  form  of  hetaerism,  which  still  follows  mankind  in 
civilization  as  a  dark  shadow  upon  the  family.  The 
contrast  between  the  punaluan  and  s}ndyasmian  families 
was  greater  than  between  the  latter  and  the  monogamian. 
It  was  subsequent  in  time  to  the  gens,  which  was  largely 
instrumental  in  its  production.  That  it  was  a  transi- 
tional stage  of  the  family  between  the  two  is  made  evident 
by  its  inability  to  change  materially  the  Turanian  system 
of  consanguinity,  which  monogamy  alone  was  able  to 
overthrow.  From  the  Columbia  River  to  the  Paraguay, 
the  Indian  family  was  syndyasmian  in  general,  punaluaiv 
in  exceptional  areas,  and  monogamian  perhaps  in  none. 

XII.  and  XIII.  Pastoral  Life  and  the  Patriarchal  Fam- 
ily.— It  has  been  remarked  elsewhere  that  polygamy  was 
not  the  essential  feature  of  this  family,  which  represented 
a  movement  of  society  to  assert  the  individuality  of 
persons.  Among  the  Semitic  tribes,  it  was  an  organi- 
zation of  servants  and  slaves  under  a  patriarch  for  the 
care  of  flocks  and  herds,  for  the  cultivation  of  lands, 
and  for  mutual  protection  and  subsistence.  Polygamy 
was  incidental.  With  a  single  male  head  and  an  ex- 
clusive cohabitation,  this  family  was  an  advance  upon 
the  syndyasmian,  and  therefore  not  a  retrograde  move- 
ment. Its  influence  upon  the  human  race  was  limited  ; 
but  it  carries  with  it  a  confession  of  a  state  of  society  in 
the  previous  period  against  which  it  was  designed  to 
form  a  barrier. 

XIV.  Rise  of  Property  and  the  establishment  of  lineal 
succession  to  Estates.  —  Independently  of  the  movement 
which  culminated  in  the  patriarchal  family  of  the  Hebrew 
and  Latin  types,  property,  as  it  increased  in  variety  and 
amount,  exercised  a  steady  and  constantly  augmenting 
influence  in  the  direction  of  monogamy.  It  is  impossible 
to  ovv-restimate  the  influence  of  property  in  the  civiliza- 


512  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

tion  of  mankind.  It  was  the  power  that  brought  the 
Aryan  and  Semitic  nations  out  of  barbarism  into  civili- 
zation. The  growth  of  the  idea  of  property  in  the 
human  mind  commenced  in  feebleness  and  ended  in  be- 
coming its  master  passion.  Governments  and  laws  are 
instituted  with  primary  reference  to  its  creation,  protec- 
tion and  enjoyment.  It  introduced  human  slavery  as 
an  instrument  in  its  production ;  and,  after  the  experience 
of  several  thousand  years,  it  caused  the  abolition  of 
slavery  upon  the  discovery  that  a  freeman  was  a  better 
property-making  machine.  The  cruelty  inherent  in  the 
heart  of  man,  which  civilization  and  Christianity  have 
softened  without  eradicating,  still  betrays  the  savage 
origin  of  mankind,  and  in  no  way  more  pointedly  than 
in  the  practice  of  human  slavery,  through  all  the  cen- 
turies of  recorded  history.  With  the  establishment  of  the 
inheritance  of  property  in  the  children  of  its  owner,  came 
the  first  possibility  of  a  strict  monogamian  family.  Grad- 
ually, though  slowly,  this  form  of  marriage,  with  an 
exclusive  cohabitation,  became  the  rule  rather  than  the 
exception ;  but  it  was  not  until  civilization  had  com- 
menced that  it  became  permanently  established. 

XV.  The  Monogamian  Family. — As  finally  constituted, 
this  family  assured  the  paternity  of  children,  substituted 
the  individual  ownership  of  real  as  well  as  personal  prop- 
erty for  joint  ownership,  and  an  exclusive  inheritance 
by  children  in  the  place  of  agnatic  inheritance.  Modern 
society  reposes  upon  the  monogamian  family.  The 
whole  previous  experience  and  progress  of  mankind 
culminated  and  crystallized  in  this  pre-eminent  institu- 
tion. It  was  a  slow  growth,  planting  its  roots  far  back 
in  the  period  of  savagery — a  final  result  toward  which 
the  experience  of  the  ages  steadily  tended.  Although 
essentially  modern,  it  was  the  product  of  a  vast  and 
varied  experience. 

XVI.  The  Aryan,  Semitic  and  Uralian  systems  of  con- 
sanguinity, which  are  essentially  identical,  were  created 
bv  the  monogamian  family.  Its  relationships  are  those 
which  actually  existed  under  this  form  of  marriage  and 
of  the  family.     A  system  of  consanguinity  is  not  an  ar- 


SEQUENCE    OF    INSTITUTIONS  5  3 

bitrary  enactment,  but  a  natural  growth.  It  expresses, 
and  must  of  necessity  express,  the  actual  facts  of  con- 
sanguinity as  they  appeared  to  the  common  mind  when 
the  system  was  formed.  As  the  Aryan  system  establishes 
the  antecedent  existence  of  a  monogamian  family,  so 
the  Turanian  establishes  the  antecedent  existence  of  a 
punaluan  family,  and  the  Malayan  the  antecedent  ex- 
istence of  a  consanguine  family.  The  evidence  they 
contain  must  be  regarded  as  conclusive,  because  of  its 
convincing  character  in  each  case.  \A'ith  the  existence 
established  of  three  kinds  of  marriage,  of  three  forms  of 
the  family,  and  of  three  systems  of  consanguinity,  nine 
of  the  sixteen  members  of  the  sequence  are  sustained. 
The  existence  and  relations  of  the  remainder  are  war- 
ranted by  sufficient  proof. 

The  views  herein  presented  contravene,  as  I  am  aware, 
an  assumption  which  has  for  centuries  been  generally 
accepted.  It  is  the  hypothesis  of  human  degradation  to 
explain  the  existence  of  barbarians  and  of  savages,  who 
v.-ere  found,  physically  and  mentally,  too  far  below  the 
conceived  standard  of  a  supposed  original  man.  It  was 
never  a  scientific  proposition  supported  by  facts.  It  is 
refuted  bv  the  connected  series  of  inventions  and  dis- 
coveries, by  the  progressive  development  of  the  social 
system,  and  by  the  successive  forms  of  the  family.  The 
Aryan  and  Semitic  peoples  descended  from  barbarous 
ancestors.  The  question  then  meets  us,  how  could  these 
barbarians  have  attained  to  the  Upper  Status  of  barbar- 
ism, in  which  they  first  appear,  without  previously  pass- 
ing through  the  experience  and  acquiring  the  arts  and 
development  of  the  ^liddle  Status;  and,  further  than 
this,  how  could  they  ha\e  attained  to  the  Middle  Status 
without  first  passing  through  the  experience  of  the 
Lower.  Back  of  these  is  the  further  question,  how  a 
barbarian  could  exist  without  a  previous  savage.  This 
hvpothesis  of  degradation  leads  to  another  necessity, 
namely ;  that  of  regarding  all  the  races  of  mankind  with- 
out the  Arvan  and  Semitic  connections  as  abnormal  races 

races  fallen  away  by  degeneracy    from    their    normal 

state.     The  Arvan  and  Semitic  nations,  it  is  true,  repre- 


514  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

sent  the  main  streams  of  human  progress,  because  they 
have  carried  it  to  the  highest  point  yet  attained;  but 
there  are  good  reasons  for  supposing  that  before  they 
became  differentiated  into  Aryan  and  Semitic  tribes,  they 
formed  a  part  of  the  indistinguishable  mass  of  barbari- 
ans. As  these  tribes  themselves  sprang  remotely  from 
barbarous,  and  still  more  remotely  from  savage  ances- 
tors, the  distinction  of  nonnal  and  abnormal  races  falls 
to  the  ground. 

This  sequence,  moreover,  contravenes  some  of  the  con- 
clusions of  that  body  of  eminent  scholars  who,  in  their 
speculations  upon  the  origin  of  society,  have  adopted  the 
patriarchal  family  of  the  Hebrew  and  Latin  types  as  the 
oldest  form  of  the  family,  and  as  producing  the  earliest 
organized  society.  The  human  race  is  thus  invested 
from  its  infancy  with  a  knowledge  of  the  family  under 
paternal  power.  Among  the  latest,  and  holding  fore- 
most rank  among  them,  is  Sir  Henry  Maine,  whose  bril- 
liant researches  in  the  sources  of  ancient  law,  and  in  the 
early  history  of  institutions,  have  advanced  so  largely 
our  knowledge  of  them.  The  patriarchal  family,  it  is 
true,  is  the  oldest  made  known  to  us  by  ascending  along 
the  lines  of  classical  and  Semitic  authorities ;  but  an  in- 
vestigation along  these  lines  is  unable  to  penetrate  be- 
yond the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  leaving  at  least  four 
entire  ethnical  p«^riods  untouched,  and  their  connection 
unrecognized.  It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  the 
facts  with  respect  to  the  early  condition  of  mankind  have 
been  but  recently  produced,  and  that  judicious  investi- 
gators are  justly  careful  about  surrendering  old  doctrines 
for  new. 

Unfortunately  for  the  hypothesis  of  degradation,  in- 
ventions and  discoveries  would  come  one  by  one ;  the 
knowledge  of  a  cord  must  precede  the  bow  and  arrow, 
as  the  knowledge  of  gunpowder  preceded  the  musket, 
and  that  of  the  steam-engine  preceded  the  railway  and 
the  steamship ;  so  the  arts  of  subsistence  followed  each 
other  at  long  intervals  of  time,  and  human  tools  passed 
through  forms  of  flint  and  stone  before  they  were  formed 
of  iron.     In  like  manner  institutions  of  government  are 


SEQUENCE    OF    INSTITUTIONS  615 

a  growth  from  primitive  germs  of  thought.  Growth, 
development  and  transmission,  must  explain  their  exist- 
ence among  civilized  nations.  Not  less  clearly  was  the 
monogamian  family  derived,  by  experience,  through  the 
syndyasmian  from  the  punaluan,  and  the  still  more  an- 
cient consanguine  family.  If,  finally,  we  are  obliged  to 
surrender  the  antiquity  of  the  monogamian  family,  we 
gain  a  knowledge  of  its  derivation,  which  is  of  more  im- 
portance, because  it  reveals  the  price  at  which  it  was 
obtained. 

The  antiquity  of  mankind  upon  the  earth  is  now  estab- 
lished by  a  body  of  evidence  sufficient  to  convince  unprej- 
udiced minds.  The  existence  of  the  race  goes  back  defi- 
nitely to  the  glacial  period  in  Europe,  and  even  back  of 
it  into  the  anterior  period.  \\'e  are  now  compelled  to 
recognize  the  prolonged  and  unmeasured  ages  of  man's 
existence.  The  human  mind  is  naturally  and  justly  curi- 
ous to  know  something  of  the  life  of  man  during  the  last 
hundred  thousand  or  more  years,  now  that  we  are  as- 
sured his  days  have  been  so  long  upon  the  earth.  All 
this  time  could  not  have  been  spent  in  vain.  His  great 
and  marvelous  achievements  prove  the  contrary,  as  well 
as  imply  the  expenditure  of  long  protracted  ethnical 
periods.  The  fact  that  civilization  was  so  recent  sug- 
gests the  difficulties  in  the  w^ay  of  human  progress,  and 
affords  some  intimation  of  the  lowness  of  the  level  from 
which  mankind  started  on  their  career. 

The  foregoing  sequence  may  require  modification,  and 
perhaps  essential  change  in  some  of  its  members ;  but  it 
affords  both  a  rational  and  a  satisfactory  explanation  of 
the  facts  of  human  experience,  so  far  as  they  are  known, 
and  of  the  course  of  human  progress,  in  developing  the 
ideas  of  the  family  and  of  government  in  the  tribes  of 
mankind. 


NOTE. 
Mr.  J.  F.  McLennan's  "Primitive  Marriage." 

As  these  pages  are  passing  through  the  press,  I  have  ob- 
tained an  enlarged  edition  of  the  abovernamed  work.  It  is 
a  reprint  of  the  original,  with  several  Essays  appended;  and 
is  now  styled  "Studies  in  Ancient  History  Comprising  a  Re- 
print of  Primitive  Marriage." 

In  one  of  these  Essays,  entitled  "The  Classificatory  System 
of  Relationships,"  Mr.  McLennan  devotes  one  section  (41 
pages)  to  an  attempted  refutation  of  my  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  the  classificatory  system;  and  another  (36  pages) 
to  an  explanation  of  his  own  of  the  origin  of  the  same  sys- 
tem. The  hypothesis  first  referred  to  is  contained  in  my 
work  on  the  "Systems  of  Consanguinity  and  Affinity  of  the 
Human  Family"  (pp.  479-486).  The  facts  and  their  explana- 
tion are  the  same,  substantially,  as  those  presented  in  preced- 
ing chapters  of  this  volume  (Chaps.  II,  and  III,  Part  III). 
"Primitive  Marriage"  was  first  published  in  1865,  and  "Sys- 
tems of  Consanguinity,"  etc.,  in  1871. 

Having  collected  the  facts  which  established  the  existence 
of  the  classificatory  system  of  consanguinity.  I  ventured  to 
submit,  with  the  Tables,  an  hypothesis  explanatory  of  its 
origin.  That  hypotheses  are  useful,  and  often  indispensable 
to  the  attainment  of  truth,  will  not  be  questioned.  The  val- 
idity, of  the  solution  presented  in  that  work,  and  repeated  in 
this,  will  depend  upon  its  sufficiency  in  explaining  all  the  facts 
of  the  case.  Until  it  is  superseded  by  one  better  entitled  to 
acceptance  on  this  ground,  its  position  in  my  work  is  legit- 
imate, and  in  accordance  with  the  method  of  scientific  inquiry. 

\ir.  McLennan  has  criticised  this  hypothesis  with  great 
freedom.  His  conclusion  is  stated  generally  as  follows 
(Studies,  etc.,  p.  371) :  "The  space  I  have  devoted  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  solution  may  seem  disproportioned  to  its 
importance;  but  issuing  from  the  press  of  the  Smithsonian 
Institution,  and  its  preparation  having  been  aided  by  the 
United  States  Government.  Mr.  Morgan's  work  has  been  very 
generally  quoted  as  a  work  of  authority,  and  it  seemed  worth 

516 


SEQUENCE    OF   INSTiTtTTIONS  5I7 

while  to  take  the  trouble  necessary  to  show  its  utterly  un- 
scientific character."  Not  the  hypothesis  alone,  but  the  entire 
work  is  covered  by  the  charge. 

That  work  contains  187  pages  of  "Tables  of  Consanguinity 
and  Aftimt}^"  exhibiting  the  systems  of  139  .tribes  and  nations 
of  mankind  representing  four-fifths,  numerically,  of  the  entire 
human  family.  It  is  singular  that  the  bare  facts  of  consan- 
guinity and  afiinity  expressed  by  terms  of  relationship,  even 
when  placed  in  tabular  form,  should  possess  an  "utterly  un- 
scientific character."  The  body  of  the  work  is  taken  up  with 
the  dry  details  of  these  several  systems.  There  remains  a 
final  chapter,  consisting  of  43  out  of  590  pages,  devoted  to  a 
comparison  of  these  several  systems  of  consanguinity,  in 
which  this  solution  or  hypothesis  appears.  It  was  the  first 
discussion  of  a  large  mass  of  new  material,  and  had  Mr. 
McLennan's  charge  been  limited  to  this  chapter,  there  would 
have  been  little  need  of  a  discussion  here.  But  he  has  di- 
rected his  main  attack  against  the  Tables;  denying  that  the 
systems  they  exhibit  are  systems  of  consanguinity  and  aflfin- 
ity,  thus  going  to  the  bottom  of  the  subject.* 

Mr.  McLennan's  position  finds  an  explanation  in  the  fact, 
that  as  systems  of  consanguinity  and  affinity  they  antagon- 
ize and  refute  the  principal  opinions  and  the  principal  theo- 
ries propounded  in  "Primitive  Marriage."  The  author  of 
"Primitive  Marriage"  would  be  expected  to  stand  by  his  pre- 
conceived opinions. 

As  systems  of  consanguinity,  for  example:  (1.)  They  show 
that  Mr.  McLennan's  new  terms,  "Exogamy  and  Endogamy" 
are  of  questionable  utility  —  that  as  used  in  "Primitive  Mar- 
riage," their  positions  are  reversed,  and  that  "endogamy"  has 
very  little  application  to  the  facts  treated  in  that  work,  while 
"exogamy"  is  simply  a  rule  of  a  gens,  and  should  be  stated 
as  such.  (2.)  They  refute  Mr.  McLennan's  phrase,  "kinship 
through  females  only,"  by  showing  that  kinship  through  males 
was  recognized  as  constantly  as  kinship  through  females  by 
the  same  people.  (3.)  They  show  that  the  Nair  and  Tibetan 
polj^andry  could  never  have  been  general  in  the  tribes  of  man- 
kind. (4.)  Tbey  deny  both  the  necessity  and  the  extent  of 
"wife  stealing"  as  propounded  in  "Primitive  Marriage." 

An  examination  of  the  grounds,  upon  which  Mr.  McLen- 
nan's charge  is  made,  will  show  not  only  the  failure  of  his 
criticisms  iDut  the  insufficiency  of  the  theories  on  which  these 
criticisms  are  based.  Such  an,  examination  leads  to  results 
disastrous  to  his  entire  work,  as  will  be  made  evident  by  the 
discussion  of  the  following  propositions,  namely: 

1  "Thp  "Tables,"  however,  are  the  "main  results"  of  this  In- 
vestigation. In  their  importance  and  value  they  reach  beyond 
any  present  use  of  their  contents  tlie  writer  may  be  able  to 
Indicate."— "Systems  of  Consanguinity."  etc.,  Smithsonian  Con- 
tributions to  "Knowledge,   vol.   xvii,  p.   8. 


6l8  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

I.  That  the  principal  terms  and  theories  employed  in 
"Primitive  Marriage"  have  no  value  in  Ethnology. 

II.  That  Mr.  McLennan's  hypothesis  to  account  for  the 
origin  of  the  classificatory  system  of  relationship  does  not 
account  for  its  origin. 

III.  That  Mr.  McLennan's  objections  to  the  hypothesis 
piesented  in  "Systems  of  Consanguinity,"  etc.,  are  of  no  force. 

These  propositions  will  be  considered  in  the  order  named. 

I.  That  the  principal  terms  and  theories  employed  in 
"Primitive  Marriage"  have  no  value  in  Ethnology. 

When  this  work  appeared  it  was  received  with  favor  by 
ethnologists,  because  as  a  speculative  treatise  it  touched  a 
number  of  questions  upon  which  they  had  long  been  working. 
A  careful  reading,  however,  disclosed  deficiencies  in  defini- 
tions, unwarranted  assumptions,  crude  speculations  and  erro- 
neous conclusions.  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  in  his  "Principles 
of  Sociology"  (Advance  Sheets,  Popular  Science  Monthly, 
Jan.,  1877,  p.  272),  has  pointed  out  a  number  of  them.  At  the 
same  time  he  rejects  the  larger  part  of  Mr.  McLennan's  the- 
ories respecting  "Female  Infanticide,"  "Wife  Stealing,"  and 
"Exogamy  and  Endogamy."  What  he  leaves  of  this  work, 
beyond  its  collocation  of  certain  ethnological  facts,  it  is  difii- 
cult  to  find. 

It  will  be  sufficient  under  this  head  to  consider  three  points. 

1.  Mr.  McLennan's  use  of  the  terms  "Exogamy"  and  "En- 
dogamy." 

"Exogamy"  and  "endogamy"  —  terms  of  his  own  coinage  — 
imply,  respectively,  an  obligation  to  "marry  out,"  and  an  obli- 
gation to  "marry  in,"  a  particular  group  of  persons. 

These  terms  are  applied  so  loosely  and  so  imprecisely  by 
Mr.  McLennan  to  the  organized  groups  made  known  to  him 
by  the  authors  he  cites,  that  both  his  terms  and  his  conclu- 
sions are  of  little  value.  It  is  a  fundamental  difficulty  with 
"Primitive  Marriage"  that  the  gens  and  the  tribe,  or  the 
groups  they  represent,  are  not  distinguished  from  each  other 
as  members  of  an  organic  series,  so  that  it  might  be  known 
of  which  group  "exogamy"  or  "endogamy"  is  asserted.  One 
of  eight  gentes  of  a  tribe,  for  example,  may  be  "exogamous" 
with  respect  to  itself,  and  "endogamous"  with  respect  to  the 
seven  remaining  gentes.  Moreover,  these  terms,  in  such  a 
case,  if  correctly  applied,  are  misleading.  Mr.  McLennan 
seems  to  be  presenting  two  great  principles,  representing  dis- 
tinct conditions  of  society  which  have  influenced  human  af- 
fairs. In  point  of  fact,  while  "endogamy"  has  very  little  ap- 
plication to  conditions  of  society  treated  in  "Primitive  Mar- 
riage," "exogamy"  has  reference  to  a  rule  or  law  of  a  gens  — 
an  institution  —  and  as  such  the  unit  of  organization  of  a  so- 
cial system.  It  is  the  gens  that  has  influenced  human  affairs, 
and  which  is  the  primary  fact.  We  are  at  once  concerned  to 
know  its  functions  and  attributes,  with  the  rights,  privileges 


SEQUENCE   OF   INSTITUTIONS  519 

and  obligations  of  its  members.  Of  these  material  circum- 
stances Mr.  McLennan  makes  no  account,  nor  does  he  seem 
to  have  had  the  slightest  conception  of  the  gens  as  a  govern- 
ing institution  of  ancient  society.  Two  of  its  rules  are  the 
following:  (1.)  Intermarriage  in  the  gens  is  prohibited.  This 
is  Mr.  McLennan's  "exogamy" —  restricted  as  it  always  is 
to  a  gens,  but  stated  by  him  without  any  reference  to  a  gens. 
(2.)  In  the  archaic  form  of  the  gens  descent  is  limited  to  the 
female  line,  which  is  Mr.  McLennan's  "kinship  through  fe- 
males only,"  and  which  is  also  stated  by  him  without  any 
reference  to  a  gens. 

Let  us  follow  this  matter  further.  Seven  definitions  of 
tribal  system,  and  of  tribe  are  given  (Studies,  etc.,  113-115). 
"Exogamy  Pure. — 1.  Tribal  (or  family)  system.  —  Tribes 
separate.  All  the  members  of  each  tribe  of  the  same  blood, 
or  feigning  themselves  to  be  so.  Marriage  prohibited  between 
the  members  of  the'  tribe. 

"2.  Tribal  system. — Tribe  a  congeries  of  family  groups,  fall- 
ing into  divisions,  clans,  thums,  etc.  No  connubium  between 
members  of  same  division:  connubium  between  all  the  divi- 
sions. 

"3.  Tribal  system. — Tribe  a  congeries  of  family  groups. 
*  *  *  No  connubium  between  persons  whose  family  name 
points  them  out  as  being  of  the  same  stock. 

"4.  Tribal  system. — Tribe  in  divisions.  No  connubium  be- 
tween members  of  the  same  divisions:  conftubium  between 
some  of  the  divisions;  only  partial  connubium  between 
others.     *     *     * 

"5.  Tribal  system. — Tribe  in  divisions.  No  connubium  be- 
tween persons  of  the  same  stoclc:  connubium  between  each 
division  and  some  other.  No  connubium  between  some  of 
the  divisions.     Caste. 

"Endogamy  Pure.  6.  Tribal  (or  family)  system. — Tribes 
separate.  All  the  members  of  each  tribe  of  the  same  blood, 
or  feigning  themselves  to  be  so.  Connubium  between  mem- 
bers of  the  tribe:  marriage  without  the  tribe  forbidden  and 
punished. 

"7.     Tribal  system  indistinct." 

Seven  definitions  of  the  tribal  system  ought  to  define  the 
group  called  a  tribe,  with  sufficient  distinctness  to  be  rec- 
ognized. 

The  first  definition,  however,  is  a  puzzle.  There  are  sev- 
eral tribes  in  a  tribal  system,  but  no  term  for  the  aggregate 
of  tribes.  They  are  not  supposed  to  form  a  united  body. 
How  the  separate  tribes  fall  into  a  tribal  system  or  are  held 
together  does  not  appear.  All  the  members  of  each  tribe 
are  of  the  same  blood,  or  pretend  to  be,  and  therefore  can- 
not intermarry.  This  might  answer  for  a  description  of  a 
gens;  but  the  gens  is  never  found  alone,  separate  from  other 
gentes.     There  are  several  gentes  intermingled  by  marriage 


520  ANCinKT  SOCIETY 

in  every  tribe  composed  of  gentes.  But  Mr.  McLennan  could 
not  have  used  tribe  here  as  equivalent  to  gens,  nor  as  a 
congeries  of  family  groups.  As  separate  bodies  of  con- 
sanguinei  held  together  in  a  tribal  system,  the  bodies  unde- 
fined and  the  system  unexplained,  we  are  offered  something 
altogether  new.  Definition  6  is  much  the  same.  It  is  not 
probable  that  a  tribe  answering  to  either  of  these  defini- 
tions ever  existed  in  any  part  of  the  earth;  for  it  is  neither 
a  gens,  nor  a  tribe  composed  of  gentes,  nor  a  nation  formed 
by   the   coalescence   of   tribes. 

Definitions  2d,  3d,  4th,  and  5th  are  somewhat  more  intel- 
ligible. They  show  in  each  case  a  tribe  composed  of  gentes, 
or  divisions  based  upon  kin.  But  it  is  a  gentile  rather  than 
a  tribal  system.  As  marriage  is  allowed  between  the  clans, 
thums,  or  divisions  of  the  same  tribe,  "exogamy"  cannot  be 
asserted  of  the  tribe  in  either  case.  The  clan,  thum,  or  di- 
vision is  "exogamous,"  with  respect  to  itself,  but  "endoga- 
mous"  with  respect  to  the  other  clans,  thums,  or  divisions. 
Particular  restrictions  are  stated  to  exist  in  some  instances. 

When  Mr.  McLennan  applies  the  terms  "exogamy"  or 
"endogamy"  to  a  tribe,  how  is  it  to  be  known  whether  it  is 
one  of  several  separate  tribes  in  a  tribal  system,  whatever 
this  may  mean,  or  a  tribe  defined  as  a  congeries  of  family 
groups?  On  the  next  page  (116)  he  remarks:  "The  separate 
endogamous  tribes  are  nearly  as  numerous,  and  they  are  in 
some  respects  as  rude,  as  the  separate  exogamous  tribes." 
If  he  uses  tribe  as  a  congeries  of  family  groups,  which  is  a 
tribe  composed  of  gentes,  then  "exogamy"  cannot  be  asserted 
of  the  tribe.  There  is  not  the  slightest  probability  that 
"exogamy"  ever  existed  in  a  tribe  composed  of  gentes  in 
any  part  of  the  earth.  Wherever  the  gentile  organization 
has  been  found  intermarriage  iri  the  gens  is  forbidden.  It 
gives  what  Mr.  McLennan  calls  "exogamy."  But,  as  an 
equally  general  rule,  intermarriage  between  the  members  of 
a  gens  and  the  members  of  all  the  other  gentes  of  the  same 
tribe  is  permitted.  The  gens  is  "exogamous,"  and  the  tribe 
is  essentially  "endogamous."  In  these  cases,  if  in  no  others, 
it  was  material  to  know  the  group  covered  by  the  word 
tribe.  Take  another  illustration  (p. 42)  :  "If  it  can  be  shown, 
firstly,  that  exogamous  tribes  exist,  or  have  existed;  and, 
secondly,  that  in  ruder  times  the  relations  of  separate  tribes 
were  uniformly,  or  almost  uniformly,  hostile,  we  have  found 
a  set  of  circumstances  in  which  men  could  get  wives  only 
by  capturing  them."  Here  we  find  the  initial  point  of  Mr. 
AIcLennan's  theory  of  wife  stealing.  To  make  the  "set  of 
circumstances"  (namely,  hostile  and  therefore  independent 
tribes),  tribe  as  used  here  must  refer  to  the  larger  group,  a 
tribe  composed  of  gentes.  For  the  members  of  the  several 
gentes  of  a  tribe  are  intermingled  by  marriage  in  every  fam- 


SEQUENCE   OF   INSTITUTIONS  521 

ily  throughout  the  area  occupied  by  the  tribe.  All  the  gentes 
must  be  hostile  or  none.  If  the  term  is  applied  to  the  smaller 
group,  the  gens,  then  the  gens  is  "exogamous,"  and  the  tribe, 
in  the  given  case,  is  seven-eighths  "endogamous,"  and  wha^ 
becomes  of  the  "set  of  circumstances"  necessitating  wife 
stealing? 

The  principal  cases  cited  in  "Primitive  Marriage"  to  prove 
"exogamy"  are  the  Khonds,  Kalmucks,  Circassians,  Yurak 
Samoyeds,  certain  tribes  of  India  and  Australia,  and  certain 
Indian  tribes  of  America,  the  Iroquois  among  the  number 
(pp.  75-100).  The  American  tribes  are  generally  composed 
of  gentes.  A  man  cannot  marry  a  woman  of  the  same  gens 
with  himself;  but  he  may  marry  a  woman  of  any  other  gens 
of  his  own  tribe.  For  example,  a  man  of  the  Wolf  gens  of 
the  Seneca  tribe  of  the  Iroquois  is  prohibited  from  marrying 
a  woman  of  the  same  gens,  not  only  in  the  Seneca  tribe, 
but  also  in  either  of  the  five  remaining  Iroquois  tribes.  Here 
we  have  Mr.  McLennan's  "exogamy,"  but  restricted,  as  it  al- 
ways is,  to  the  gens  of  the  individual.  But  a  man  may  marry 
a  woman  in  either  of  the  seven  remaining  Seneca  gentes. 
Here  we  have  "endogamy"  in  the  tribe,  practiced  by  the 
members  of  each  gens  in  the  seven  remaining  Seneca  gentes. 
Both  practices  exist  side  by  side  at  the  same  time,  in  the 
same  tribe,  and  have  so  existed  from  time  immemorial.  The 
same  fact  is  true  of  the  American  Indian  tribes  in  general. 
They  are  cited,  nevertheless,  by  Mr.  McLennan,  as  examples 
of  "exogamous  tribes";  and  thus  enter  into  the  basis  of  his 
theories. 

With  respect  to  "endogamy,"  Mr.  McLennan  would  prob- 
ably refrain  from  using  it  in  the  above  case:  firstly,  because 
"exogamy"  and  "endogamy"  fail  here  to  represent  two  oppo- 
site principles  as  they  exist  in  his  imagination;  and,  second- 
ly, because  there  is,  in  reality,  but  one  fact  to  be  indicated, 
namely,  that  intermarriage  in  the  gens  is  prohibited.  Amer- 
ican Indians  generally  can  marry  in  their  own  or  in  a  for- 
eign tribe  as  they  please,  but  not  in  their  gens.  Mr.  Mc- 
Lennan was  able  to  cite  one  fair  case  of  "endogamy,"  that 
of  the  Mantchu  Tartars  (p.  116),  '"'who  prohibited  marriage 
between  persons  whose  family  names  are  different."  A  few 
other  similar  cases   have  been  found  among  existing  tribes. 

If  the  organizations,  for  example,  of  the  Yyrak  Samoyeds 
of  Siberia  (82),  the  Magars  of  Nepaul  (83),  the  Munnie- 
porees,  Koupooees,  Mows,  Muram  and  Marring  tribes  of 
India  (87),  were  examined  upon  the  original  evidence,  it  is 
highly  probable  that  they  would  be  found  exactlj-  analogous 
to  the  Iroquois  tribes;  the  "divisions"  and  "thums"  being 
gentes.  Latham,  speaking  of  the  Yurak  or  Kasovo  group  of 
the  Samoyeds,  quotes  from  Klaprolh,  as  follows:  "This  divi- 
sion of  the  kinsmanship  is  so  rigidly  observed  that  no  Sam- 


522  A^rcIE^fT  society 

oyed  takes  a  wife  from  the  kinsmanship  to  which  he  himself 
belongs.  On  the  contrary  he  seeks  her  in  one  of  tJ:e  other 
two."^  The  same  author,  speaking  of  the  Magars,  r-?marks: 
"There  are  twelve  thums.  All  individuals  belonging  to  the 
same  thum  are  supposed  to  be  descended  from  the  same 
male  ancestor;  descent  from  the  same  great  mother  being  by 
no  means  necessary.  So  husband  and  wife  must  belong  to 
different  thums.  With  one  and  the  same  there  is  no  mar- 
riage. Do  you  wish  for  a  wife?  If  so,  look  to  the  thum  of 
your  neighbor;  at  any  rate  look  beyond  your  own.  This  is 
the  first  time  I  have  had  occasion  to  mention  this  practice: 
It  will  not  be  the  last:  on  the  contrary,  the  principle  it  sug- 
gests is  so  common  as  to  be  almost  universal."  ^  The  Mur- 
ring  and  other  tribes  of  India  are  in  divisions,  with  the  same 
rule  in  respect  to  marriage.  In  these  cases  it  is  probable 
that  we  have  tribes  composed  of  gentes,  with  intermarriage  in 
the  gens  prohibited.  Each  gens  is  "exogamous"  with  respect 
to  itself,  and  "endogamous"  with  respect  to  the  remaining 
gentes  of  the  tribe.  They  are  cited  by  Mr.  McLennan,  never- 
theless, as  examples  of  "exogainous"  tribes.  The  principal 
Australian  tribes  are  known  to  be  organized  in  gentes,  with 
intermarriage  in  the  gens  prohibited.  Here  again  the  gens 
is  "exogamous"  and  the  tribe  "endogamous." 

Where  the  gens  is  "exogamous"  with  respect  to  itself,  and 
"endogamous"  with  respect  to  the  remaining  gentes  of  the 
same  tribe,  of  what  use  is  this  pair  of  terms  to  mark  what 
is  but  a  single  fact  —  the  prohibition  of  intermarriage  in  the 
gens?  "Exogamy"  and  "endogamy"  are  of  no  value  as  a  pair 
of  terms,  pretending  as  tliey  do  to  represent  or  express  op- 
posite conditions  of  society.  They  have  no  application  in 
American  ethnology,  and  probably  none  in  Asiatic  or  Euro- 
pean. "Exogamy,"  standing  alone  and  applied  to  the  small 
group  (the  gens),  of  which  onlj^  it  can  be  asserted,  might  be 
tolerated.  There  are  no  "exogamous"  tribes  in  America,  but 
a  plenty  of  "exogamous"  gentes;  and  when  the  gens  is  found, 
we  are  concerned  with  its  rules,  and  these  should  always  be 
stated  as  rules  of  a  gens.  Mr.  McLennan  found  the  clan, 
thum,  division,  "exogamous,"  and  the  aggregate  of  clans, 
thums,  divisions,  "endogamous";  but  he  says  nothing  about 
the  "endogamy."  Neither  does  he  say  the  clan,  division,  or 
thum  is  "exogamous,"  but  that  the  tribe  is  "exogamous." 
We  might  suppose  he  intended  to  use  tribe  as  equivalent  to 
clan,  thum,  and  division;  but  we  are  met  with  the  difficulty 
that  he  defines  a  "tribe  [as]  a  congeries  of  family  groups, 
falling  into  divisions,  clans,  thums,  etc."  (114),  and  immedi- 
ately (116)  he  remarks  that  "the  separate  endogamous  tribes 
are  nearly  as   numerous,  and  they  are   in   some    respects  as 

I   "Dfscrlptlve    Ethnology,"   London    ed.,    1859,   1,   475. 
a  lb.,   1,    80. 


SifiQUENCE    OF    INSTITUTIONS  523 

rude,  as  the  separate  exogamous  tribes."  If  we  take  his 
principal  definitions,  it  can  be  said  without  fear  of  contradic- 
tion that  Air.  McLennan  has  not  produced  a  single  case  of 
an  "exogamous"   tribe  in  his  volume. 

There  is  another  objection  to  this  pair  of  terms.  They  are 
set  over  against  each  other  to  indicate  opposite  and  dissim- 
ilar conditions  of  society.  Which  of  the  two  is  the  ruder, 
and  which  the  more  advanced?  Abundant  cautions  are  here 
thrown  out  by  Mr.  McLennan.  '"They  may  represent  a  pro- 
gression from  exogamy  to  endogamy,  or  from  endogamy  to 
exogamy"  (115);  "they  may  be  equally  archaic"  (.116;;  and 
"they  are  in  some  respects"  equally  rude  (116);  but  before 
the  discussion  ends,  "endogamy"  rises  to  the  superior  posi- 
tion, and  stands  over  toward  civilization,  while  "exogamy" 
falls  back  in  the  direction  of  savagery.  It  became  convenient 
in  Mr.  McLennan's  speculations  for  "exogamj-"  to  introduce 
heterogeneity,  which  "endogamy"  is  employed  to  expel,  and 
bring  in  homogeneity;  so  that  "endogamy"  finally  gets  the 
better  of  "exogamy"  as  an  influence  for  progress. 

One  of  Mr.  McLennan's  mistakes  was  his  reversal  of  the 
positions  of  these  terms.  What  he  calls  "endogamy"  pre- 
cedes "exogamy"  in  the  order  of  human  progress,  and  be- 
longs to  the  lowest  condition  of  mankind.  Ascending  to  the 
time  when  the  Malayan  system  of  consanguinity  was  formed, 
and  which  preceded  the  gens,  we  find  consanguine  groups  in 
the  marriage  relation.  The  system  of  consanguinity  indicates 
both  the  fact  and  the  character  of  the  groups  and  exhibits 
"endogamy"  in  its  pristine  force.  Advancing  from  this  state 
of  things,  the  first  check  upon  "endogamy"  is  found  in  the 
punaluan  group,  which  sought  to  exclude  own  brothers  and 
sisters  from  the  marriage  relation,  while  it  retained  in  that 
relation  first,  second,  and  more  remote  cousins,  still  under 
the  name  of  brothers  and  sisters.  The  same  thing  precisely 
is  found  in  the  Australian  organization  upon  sex.  Next  in 
the  order  of  time  the  gens  appeared,  with  descent  in  the  fe- 
male line,  and  with  intermarriage  in  the  gens  prohibited.  It 
brought  in  Mr.  McLennan's  "exogam^^"  From  this  time  for- 
ward "endogamy"  may  be  dismissed  as  an  influence  upon  hu- 
man affairs. 

According  to  Mr.  McLennan,  "exogamy"  fell  into  decay  in 
advancing  communities;  and  when  descent  was  changed  to 
the  male  line  it  disappeared  in  the  Grecian  and  Roman  tribes 
(p.  220.)  So  far  from  this  being  the  case,  what  he  calls  "exog- 
amy" commenced  in  savagery  with  the  gens,  continued 
tlirough  barbarism,  and  remained  into  civilization.  It  existed 
as  completely  in  the  gentes  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  in  the 
time  of  Solon  and  of  Servius  Tullius  as  it  now  exists  in  the 
gentes  of  the  Iroquois.  "Exogamy"  and  "endogamy"  have 
been  so  thoroughly  tainted  by  the  manner  of   their  use   in 


5g4  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

"Primitive    Marriage,"    that    the    best   disposition    which    can 
now  be  made  of  them  is  to  lay  them  aside. 

2.  Air.  AIcLennans  phrase:  "The  system  of  kinship 
through  females  only." 

"Primitive  Marriage''  is  deeply  colored  with  this  phrase. 
It  asserts  that  this  kinship,  where  it  prevailed,  was  the  only 
kinship  recognized;  and  thus  has  an  error  written  on  its  face. 
The  Turanian;  Ganowanian  and  Malayan  systems  of  consan- 
guinity show  plainly  and  conclusively  that  kinship  through 
males  was  recognized  as  constantly  as  kinship  through  fe- 
males. A  man  had  brothers  and  sisters,  grandfathers  and 
grandmothers,  grandsons  and  granddaugliters,  traced  through 
males  as  well  as  through  females.  The  maternity  of  children 
was  ascertainable  with  certainty,  while  their  paternity  was 
not;  but  they  did  not  reject  kinship  through  males  because  of 
uncertainty,  but  gave  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  to  a  number  of 
persons  —  probable  fathers  being  placed  in  the  category  of 
real  fathers,  probable  brothers  in  that  of  real  brothers,  and 
probable  sons  in  that  of  real  sons. 

After  the  gens  appeared,  kinship  through  females  had  an 
increased  importance,  because  it  now  signified  gentile  kin, 
as  distinguished  from  non-gentile  kin.  This  was  the  kinship, 
in  a  majority  of  cases,  made  known  to  Mr.  McLennan  by  the 
authors  he  cites.  The  children  of  the  female  members  of  the 
gens  remained  within  it,  while  the  children  of  its  male  mem- 
bers were  excluded.  Every  member  of  the  gens  traced  his 
or  her  descent  through  females  exclusively  when  descent  was 
in  the  female  line,  and  through  males  exclusivelj'  when  de- 
scent wa^  in  the  male  line.  Its  members  were  an  organized 
bod}'  of  consanguine!  bearing  a  common  gentile  name. 
They  were  bound  together  by  affinities  of  blood,  and 
by  the  further  bond  of  mutual  rights,  privileges,  and  obliga- 
tions. Gentile  kin  became,  in  both  cases,  superior  to  other 
kin;  not  because  no  other  kin  was  recognized,  but  because 
it  conferred  the  rights  and  privileges  of  a  gens.  Mr.  McLen- 
nan's  failure  to  discover  this  difference  indicates  an  insuffi- 
cient investigatiorf  of  the  subject  he  was  treating.  With  de- 
scent in  the  female  line,  a  man  had  grandfathers  and  grand- 
mothers, mothers,  brothers  and  sisters,  uncles,  nephews  and 
nieces,  and  grandsons  and  granddaughters  in  his  gens;  some 
own  and  srime  collateral;  while  he  had  the  same  out  of  his 
gens  with  the  exception  of  uncles;  and  in  addition,  fathers, 
aunts,  sons  and  daughters,  and  cousins.  A  woman  had  the 
same  relatives  in  the  gens  as  a  man,  and  sons  and  daughters, 
in  addition,  while  she  had  the  same  relatives  out  of  the  gens 
as  a  man.  Whether  in  or  out  of  the  gens,  a  brother  was 
recognized  as  a  brother,  a  father  as  a  father,  a  son  as  a  son, 
and  the  same  term  was  applied  in  either  case  without  dis- 
crimination between  them.  Descent  in  the  female  line,  which 
is  all  that   "kinship  through   females   only"  can   possibly  in- 


SEQUENCE    OF   INSTITUTIONS  535 

dicate,  is  thus  seen  to  be  a  rule  of  a  gens  and  nothing  more. 
It  ought  to  be  stated  as  such,  because  the  gens  is  the  pri- 
mary fact,  and  gentile  kinship  is  one  of  its  attributes. 

Prior  to  the  gentile  organization,  kinship  through  females 
was  undoubtedly  superior  to  kinship  through  males,  and  was 
doubtless  the  principal  basis  upon  which  the  lower  tribal 
groups  were  organized.  -  But  the  body  of  facts  treated  in 
"Primitive  Marriage"  have  little  or  no  relation  to  that  con- 
dition of  mankind  which  existed  prior  to  the  gentile  system. 

3.  There  is  no  evidence  of  the  general  prevalence  of  the 
Nair  and  Tibetan  polyandry. 

These  forms  of  polyandr}'  are  used  in  Mr.  McLennan's 
speculations  as  though  universal  in  practice.  He  employs 
them  in  his  attempted  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  classi- 
ficatory  system  of  relationship.  The  Nair  polyandry  is 
where  several  unrelated  persons  have  one  wife  in  common 
(p.  146).  It  is  called  the  rudest  form.  The  Tibetan  poly- 
andr}'  is  where  several  brothers  have  one  wife  in  common. 
He  then  makes  a  rapid  flight  through  the  tribes  of  mankind 
to  show  the  general  prevalence  of  one  or  the  other  of  these 
forms  of  polyandry,  and  fails  entirely  to_  show  their  prev- 
alence. It  docs  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  Mr.  McLennan 
that  these  forms  of  polyandr}^  are  exceptional,  and  that  they 
could  not  have  been  general  even  in  the  Neilgherrj'  Hills  or 
in  Tibet.  If  an  average  of  three  men  had  one  wife  in  com- 
mon (twelve  husbands  to  one  wife  was  the  Nair  limit,  p.  147), 
and  this  was  general  through  a  tribe,  two-thirds  of  the  mar- 
riageable females  would  be  without  husbands.  It  may  safely 
be  asserted  that  such  a  state  of  things  never  existed  gener- 
ally in  the  tribes  of  mankind,  and  without  better  evidence  it 
cannot  be  credited  in  the  Neilgherry  Hills  or  in  Tibet.  The 
facts  in  respect  to  the  Nair  polj^andry  are  not  fully  known. 
"A  Nair  may  be  one  in  several  combinations  of  husbands; 
that  is,  he  may  have  any  number  of  wives"  (p.  148).  This, 
however,  would  not  help  the  unmarried  females  to  husbands, 
although  it  would  increase  the  number  of  husbands  of  one 
wife.  Female  infanticide  cannot  be  sufficiently  exaggerated 
to  raise  into  general  prevalence  these  forms  of  polyandry. 
Neither  can  it  be  said  with  truth  that  they  have  exercised  a 
general  influence  upon  human  affairs. 

The  Malayan,  Turanian  and  Ganowanian  systems  of  con- 
sanguinity and  affinity,  however,  bring  to  light  forms  of  po- 
lyg^yny  ^nd  polyandry  which  have  influenced  human  affairs, 
because  they  were  as  universal  in  prevalence  as  these  sys- 
tems were,  when  they  respectively  came  into  existence.  In 
the  Malayan  s>'^tem,  we  find  evidence  of  consanguine  groups 
rounded  upon  brother  and  sister  marriages,  but  including  col- 
"idteral  brothers  and  sisters  in  the  group.  Here  the  men  lived 
in  polygyny,  and  the  women  in  polyandry.     In  the  Taranian 


626  ■  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

and  Ganowanian  system  we  find  evidence  of  a  more  advanced 
group — the  punaluan  in  two  forms.  One  was  founded  on 
the  brotherhood  of  the  husbands,  and  the  other  on  the 
sisterhood  of  the  wives;  own  brothers  and  sisters  being  now 
excluded  from  the  marriage  relation.  In  each  group  the  men 
were  polygynous,  and  the  women  polyandrous.  Both  prac-  • 
tices  are  found  in  the  same  group,  and  both  are  essential  to 
an  explanation  of  their  system  of  consanguinity.  The  last- 
named  system  of  consanguinity  and  affinity  presupposes  pu- 
naluan marriage  in  the  group.  This  and  the  Malayan  exhibit 
the  forms  of  polygyny  and  polyandry  with  which  ethnog- 
raphy is  concerned;  while  the  Nair  and  Tibetan  forms  of 
polyandry  are  not  onlj'  insufficient  to  explain  the  systems, 
but  are  of  no  general  importance. 

These  systems  of  consanguinity  and  affinity,  as  they  stand 
in  the  Tables,  have  committed  such  havoc  with  the  theories 
and  opinions  advanced  in  "Primitive  Marriage"  that  I  am 
constrained  to  ascribe  to  this  fact  ]Mr.  McLennan's  assault 
upon  my  hypothesis  explanatory  of  their  origin;  and  his  at- 
tempt to  substitute  another,  denying  them  to  be  sj-stems  of 
consanguinity  and  affinity. 

II.  That  Mr.  McLennan's  hypothesis  to  account  for  the 
origin  of  the  classificatory  system  does  not  account  for  its 
origin. 

Mr.  McLennan  sets  out  with  the  statement  (p.  372)  that 
"the  phenomena  presented  in  all  the  forms  [of  the  classifi- 
catory  system]  are  ultimately  referable  to  the  marriage  law; 
and  that  accordingly  its  origin  must  be  so  also."  This  is 
the  basis  of  my  explanation;  it  is  but  partially  that  of  his  own. 

The  marriage-law,  under  which  he  attempts  to  explain  the 
origin  of  the  Malayan  system,  is  that  found  in  the  Nair  poly- 
andry; and  the  marriage-law  under  which  he  attempts  to  ex- 
plain the  origin  of  the  Turanian  and  Ganowanian  system  is 
that  indicated  by  the  Tibetan  polyandry.  Btit  he  has  neither 
the  Nair  nor  Tibetan  system  of  consanguinity  and  affinity, 
with  which  to  explain  or  to  test  his  hypothesis.  He  starts, 
then,  without  any  material  from  Nair  or  Tibetan  sources,  and' 
with  forms  of  marriage-law  that  never  existed  among  the 
tribes  and  nations  possessing  the  classificatory  system  of  re- 
lationship. We  thus  find  at  the  outset  that  the  explanation 
in  question  is  a  mere  random  speculation. 

Mr.  McLennan  denies  that  the  systems  in  the  Tables  (Con- 
sanguinity, pp.  298-n82;  523-567)  are  systems  of  consanguinity 
and  afifinity.  On  the  contrary,  he  asserts  that  together  they 
are  "a  system  of  modes  of  addressing  persons."  He  is  not 
unequivocal  in  his  denial,  but  the  purport  of  his  language  is 
to  that  effect.  In  my  work  of  Consanguinity  I  pointed  out 
the  fact  that  the  American  Indians  in  familiar  intercourse 
and  in  formal  salutation  addressed  each  other  by  the  exact 
relationship  in  which  they  stood  to  each  other,  and  never  by 


SEQUENCE   OF    INSTITUTIONS  527 

the  personal  name;  and  that  the  same  usage  prevailed  in 
South  India  and  in  China.  They  use  the  system  in  salutation 
because  it  is  a  system  of  consanguinity  and  affinity — a  rea- 
son paramount.  Mr.  ^McLennan  wishes  us  to  beheve  that 
these  all-embracing  systems  were  simply  conventional,  and 
formed  to  enable  persons  to  address  each  other  in  saluta- 
tion, and  for  no  other  purpose.  It  is  a  happy  way  of  dis- 
posing of  these  systems,  and  of  throwing  away  the  most 
remarkable  record  in  existence  respecting  the  early  condi- 
tion of  mankind. 

Mr.  McLennan  imagines  there  must  have  bc^n  a  system 
of  consanguinity  somewhere  entirely  independent  of  the  sys- 
tem of  addresses;  "for  it  seems  reasonable  to  believe,"  he 
remarks  (p.  373),  "that  the  sj-stem  of  blood-ties  and  the  sys- 
tem of  addresses  would  begin  to  grow  up  together,  and  for 
some  little  time  would  have  a  common  history."  A  system 
of  blood-ties  is  a  system  of  consanguinity.  Where,  then,  is 
the  lost  system?  Mr.  McLennan  neither  produces  it  nor 
shows  its  existence.  But  I  find  he  uses  the  systems  in  the 
Tables  as  systems  of  consanguinity  and  affinity,  so  far  as 
thej'  serve  his  hypothesis,  without  taking  the  trouble  to 
modify  the  assertion  that  they  are  simply  "modes  of  ad- 
dressing persons." 

That  savage  and  barbarous  tribes  the  world  over,  and 
through  untold  ages,  should  have  been  so  solicitous  concern- 
ing the  proper  mode  of  addressing  relations  as  to  have  pro- 
duced the  Alalayan,  Turanian  and  Ganowanian  systems,  in 
their  fullness  and  complexitj-,  for  that  purpose  and  no  other, 
and  no  other  systems  than  these  two — that  in  Asia,  Africa, 
Polynesia,  and  America  thej'  should  have  agreed,  for  exam- 
ple, that  a  given  person's  grandfather's  brother  should  be 
addressed  as  grandfather,  that  brothers  older  than  one's  self 
should  be  addressed  as  elder  brothers,  and  those  j'oungcr  as 
younger  brothers,  merely  to  provide  a  conventional  mode  of 
addressing  relatives — are  coincidences  so  remarkable  and  for 
so  small  a  reason,  that  it  will  be  quite  sufficient  for  tlv?  au- 
thor of  this  brilliant  conception  to  believe  it. 

A  system  of  modes  of  addressing  persons  would  be  ephem- 
eral, because  all  conventional  usages  are  ephemeral.  They 
would,  also,  of  necessity,  be  as  diverse  as  the  races  of  man- 
kind. But  a  system  of  consanguinity  is  a  very  different  thing. 
Its  relationships  spring  from  the  family  and  the  marriage- 
law,  and  possess  even  greater  permanence  than  the  family 
itself,  which  advances  while  the  system  remains  unchanged. 
These  relationships  expressed  the  actual  facts  of  the  social 
condition  when  the  system  was  formed,  and  have  had  a  daily 
importance  in  the  life  of  mankind.  Their  uniformity  over 
immense  areas  of  the  earth,  and  their  preservation  through 
immense  periods  of  time,  are  consequences  of  their  connec- 
tion with  the  marriage-law. 


528  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

When  the  Malayan  system  of  consanguinity  was  formed^ 
it  may  be  supposed  that  a  mother  could  perceive  that  her 
own  son  and  daughter  stood  to  her  in  certain  relationships 
that  could  be  expressed  by  suitable  terms;  that  her  own 
mother  and  her  mother's  own  mother  stood  to  her  in  certain 
other  relationships;  that  the  other  children  of  her  own 
mother  stood  to  her  in  still  other  relationships;  and  that  the 
children  of  her  own  daughter  stood  to  her  in  still  others — 
all  of  which  might  be  expressed  by  suitable  terms.  It  would 
give  the  beginning  of  a  system  of  consanguinity  founded  up- 
on obvious  blood-ties.  It  would  lay  the  foundation  of  the 
five  categories  of  relations  in  the  Malayan  system,  and  with- 
out any  reference  to  marriage-law. 

When  marriage  in  the  group  and  the  consanguine  family 
came  in,  of  both  of  which  the  Malayan  system  affords  evi- 
dence, the  system  would  spread  over  the  group  upon  the 
basis  of  these  primary  conceptions.  With  the  intermarriage 
of  brothers  and  sisters,  own  and  collateral,  in  a  group,  the 
resulting  system  of  consanguinity  and  affinity  would  be  Ma- 
layan. Any  hypothesis  explanatory  of  the  origin  of  the  Ma- 
layan system  must  fail  if  these  facts  are  ignored.  Such  a 
form  of  marriage  and  of  the  family  would  create  the  Ma- 
layan system.  It  would  be  a  system  of  consanguinity  and 
affinity  from  the  beginning,  and  explainable  only  as  such. 

If  these  views  are  correct,  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  con- 
sider in  detail  the  points  of  Mr.  McLennan's  hypothesis, 
which  is  too  obscure  for  a  philosophical  discussion,  and  ut- 
terly incapable  of  affording  an  explanation  of  the  origin  of 
these  systems. 

III.  That  Mr.  McLennan's  objections  to  the  hypothesis 
presented  in  "Systems  of  Consanguinity,"  etc.,  are  of  no 
force. 

The  same  misapprehension  of  the  facts,  and  the  same  con- 
fusion of  ideas  which  mark  his  last  Essay,  also  appear  in 
this.  He  does  not  hold  distinct  the  relationships  by  con- 
sanguinity and  those  by  marriage,  when  both  exist  between 
the  same  persons;  and  he  makes  mistakes  in  the  relationships 
of  the  systems  also. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  follow  step  bj"-  step  Mr.  Mc- 
Lennan's criticisms  upon  this  hypothesis,  some  of  which  arc 
verbal,  others  of  which  are  distorted,  and  none  of  which 
touch  the  essence  of  the  questions  involved.  The  first  prop- 
osition he  attempts  to  refute  is  stated  by  him  as  follows: 
"The  Malayan  system  of  relationships  is  a  system  of  blood- 
relationships.  Mr.  Morgan  assumes  this,  and  says  nothing 
of  the  obstacles  to  making  the  assumption"  (p.  342).  It  is 
in  part  a  system  of  blood-relationships,  and  in  part  of  mar- 
riage-relationships. The  fact  is  patent.  The  relationships  of 
father  and  mother,  brother  and  sister,  elder  or  younger,  soi» 
and  daughter,  uncle  and  aunt,  nephew  and  niece  and  cousin. 


SEQUENCE   OF   INSTITUTIONS  529 

grandfather  and  mother,  grandson  and  daughter;  aad  also 
of  brother-in-law  and  sister-in-law,  son-in-law  and  daugliter- 
in-law,  besides  others,  are  given  in  the  Tables  and  were  be- 
fore Mr.  McLennan.  These  systems  speak  for  themselves, 
and  could  say  nothing  else  but  that  they  are  systems  of 
consanguinity  and  affinity.  Does  Mr.  McLennan  suppose 
that  the  tribes  named  had  a  system  other  or  different  from 
that  presented  in  the  Tables?  If  he  did,  he  was  bound  to 
produce  it,  or  to  establish  the  fact  of  its  existence.  He  does 
neither. 

Two  or  three  of  his  special  points  may  be  considered. 
"And  indeed,"  he  remarks  (p.  346),  "if  a  man  is  called  the 
son  of  a  woman  who  did  not  bear  him,  his  being  so  called 
clearly  defies  explanation  on  the  principle  of  natural  de- 
scents. The  reputed  relationship  is  not,  in  that  case,  the  one 
actually  existing  as  near  as  the  parentage  of  individuals 
could  be  known;  and  accordingly  Mr.  Morgan's  proposition 
is  not  made  out."  On  the  face  of  the  statement  the  question 
involved  is  not  one  of  parentage,  but  of  marri  ige-relation- 
ship.  A  man  calls  his  mother's  sister  his  mother,  and  she 
calls  him  her  son,  although  she  did  not  bear  him.  This  is 
the  case  in  the  Malayan,  Turai.ian  and  Ganowanian  systems. 
Whether  we  have  consanguine  or  punaluan  marriages,  a 
man's  mother's  sister  is  the  wife  of  his  reputed  father.  She 
is  his  step-mother  as  near  as  our  system  furnishes  an  ana- 
logMt;  and  among  ourselves  a  step-mother  is  called  mother, 
and  she  calls  her  step-son,  son.  It  defies  explanation,  it  is 
true,  as  a  blood-relationship,  which  it  does  not  pretend  to 
be,  but  a3  a  marriage-relationship,  which  it  pretends  to  be, 
this  is  the  explanation.  The  reasoning  of  Mr.  JilcLennan  is 
equally  specious  and  equally  faulty  in  a  number  of  cases. 

Passing  from  the  Malayan  to  the  Turanian  sj'stem,  he  re- 
marks (p.  354):  "It  follows  from  this  that  a  man's  son  and 
his  sister's  dau'ghter,  while  reputed  brother  and  sister,  would 
have  been  free,  when  the  'tribal  organization'  had  been  estab- 
lished, to  intermarry,  for  they  belonged  to  different  tribes  of 
descent."  From  this  he  branches  out  in  an  argument  of  two 
or  three  pages  to  prove  that  "Mr.  Morgan's  reason,  then,  is 
insufficient."  If  Mr,  McLennan  had  studied  the  Turanian  or 
the  Ganowanian  system  of  consanguinity  with  very  moderate 
attention,  he  would  have  found  that  a  "man's  son  and  his 
sister's  daughter"  are  not  "reputed  brother  and  sister."  On 
the  contrary,  they  are  cousins.  This  is  one  of  the  most  ob- 
vious as  well  as  important  differences  between  the  Malayan 
and  Turanian  systems,  and  the  one  which  expresses  the  dif- 
ference between  the  consanguine  family  of  the  Malayan,  and 
the  punaluan  family  of  the  Turanian  system. 

The  general  reader  will  hardly  take  the  trouble  necessary 
fo  master  the  details  of  these  systems.  ITnless  he  can  fol- 
low the  relfitionships  with  ease  and  freedom,  a  discussion  of 


680 


ANCIENT  SOCIETY 


the  system  will  be  a  source  of  perplexity  rather  than  of  pleas- 
ure. Mr.  McLennan  uses  the  terms  of  relationship  freely, 
but  without,  in  all  cases,  using  them  correctly. 

In  another  place  (.p.  360),  Mr.  McLennan  attributes  to  me 
a  distinction  between  marriage  and  cohabitation  which  I 
have  not  made;  and  follows  it  with  a  rhetorical  flourish  quite 
equal  to  the  best  in  "Primitive  Marriage." 

Finally,  Mr.  McLennan  plants  himself  upon  two  alleged 
mistakes  which  vitiate,  in  his  opinion,  my  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  the  classificatory  system.  "In  attempting  to  ex- 
plain the  origin  of  the  classificatory  system,  Mr.  Morgan 
made  two  radical  mistakes.  His  first  mistake  was,  that  he 
did  not  steadily  contemplate  the  main  peculiarity  of  the  sys- 
tem— its  classification  of  the  connected  persons;  that  he  did 
not  seek  the  origin  of  the  system  in  the  origin  of  the  classi- 
fication" (p.  360).  What  is  the  difference  in  this  case,  be- 
tween the  system  and  the  classificatioii?  The  two  mean  the 
same  thing,  and  cannot  by  any  possibility  be  made  to  mean 
anything  different.  To  seek  the  origin  of  one  is  to  seek  the 
origin  of  the  other. 

"The  second  mistake,  or  rather  I  should  say  error,  was 
to  have  so  lightly  assumed  the  system  to  be  a  system  of 
blood-ties"  (p.  361).  There  is  no  error  here,  since  the  per- 
sons named  in  the  Tables  are  descended  from  common  an- 
cestors, or  connected  by  marriage  with  some  one  or  more 
of  them.  They  are  the  same  persons  who  are  described  in 
the  Table  showing  the  Aryan,  Semitic,  and  Uralian  systems 
(Consanguinity,  pp.  79-127).  In  each  and  all  of  these  sys- 
tems they  are  bound  to  each  other  in  fact  by  consanguinity 
and  affinity.  In  the  latter  each  relationship  is  specialized; 
in  the  former  they  are  classified  in  categories;  but  in  all  alike 
the  ultimate  basis  is  the  same,  namely  actual  consanguinity 
and  af^nity.  Marriage  in  the  group  in  the  former,  and  mar- 
riage between  single  pairs  in  the  latter,  produced  the  differ- 
ence between  them.  In  the  Malayan,  Turanian  and  Gano- 
wanian  systems,  there  is  a  solid  basis  for  the  blood-relation- 
ships they  exhibit  in  the  common  descent  of  the  persons;  and 
for  the  marriage-relationships  we  must  look  to  the  form  of 
marriage  they  indicate.  Examii;ation  and  comparison  show 
that  two  distinct  forms  of  marriage  are  requisite  to  explain 
the  Malayan  and  Turanian  systems;  whence  the  application, 
as  tests  of  consanguine  marriage  in  one  case,  and  a  punaluan 
marriage  in  the  other. 

While  the  terms  of  relationship  are  constantly  used  in  salu- 
tation, it  is  because  they  are  terms  of  relationship  that  they 
are  so  used.  Mr.  McLennan's  attempt  to  (urn  them  into  con- 
ventional modes  of  addressing  persons  is  futile.  Although 
he  lays  great  stress  upon  this  view  he  makes  no  use  of  them 
as  "modes  of  address"  in  attempting  to  explain  their  origin 
So  far  as  he  makes  any  use  of  them  he  employs  them  strictly 


SEQITENCE  OF   INSTITUTIONS  ftJJl 

as  terms  of  consanguinity  and  affinity.  It  was  as  impossible 
that  "a  system  of  modes  of  addressing  persons"  should  have 
grown  up  independently  of  the  system  of  consanguinity  and 
affinity  (p.  373),  as  that  language  should  have  grown  up  in- 
dependently of  the  ideas  it  represents  and  expresses.  What 
could  have  given  to  these  terms  their  significance  as  used  in 
addressing  relatives,  but  the  relationship  whether  of  con- 
sanguinity or  affiinit}^  which  they  expressed?  The  mere  want 
of  a  mode  of  addressing  persons  could  never  have  given  such 
stupendous  systems,  identical  in  minute  details  over  im- 
mense sections  of  the  earth. 

Upon  the  essential  difference  between  Mr.  McLennan's  ex- 
planation of  the  origin  of  the  classificatory  system,  and  the 
one  presented  in  this  volume — whether  it  is  a  system  of 
modes  of  addressing  persons,  or  a  system  of  consanguinity 
and  affinitj' — I  am  quite  content  to  submit  the  question  to  the 
judgment  of  the  reader. 


PART   IV 

GROWTH  OF  THE  IDEA  OF  PROPERTY 


CHAPTER  I 

THE   THREE    RULES   OF    INHERITANCE 

It  remains  to  consider  the  growth  of  property  in  the 
several  ethnical  periods,  the  rules  that  sprang  up  with 
respect  to  its  ownership  and  inheritance,  and  the  influ- 
ence which  it  exerted  upon  ancient  society 

The  earliest  ideas  of  property  were  intimately  associ- 
ated with  the  procurement  of  subsistence,  which  was  the 
primary  need.  The  objects  of  ownership  would  natur- 
ally increase  in  each  successive  ethnical  period  with  the 
multiplication  of  those  arts  upon  which  the  means  of 
subsistence  depended.  The  growth  of  property  would 
thus  keep  pace  with  the  progress  of  inventions  and  dis- 
coveries. Each  ethnical  period  shows  a  marked  advance 
upon  its  predecessor,  not  only  in  the  number  of  inven- 
tions, but  also  in  the  variety  and  amount  of  property 
which  resulted  therefrom.  The  multiplicity  of  the 
forms  of  property  would  be  accompanied  by  the  growth 
of  certain  regulations  with  reference  to  its  possession  and 
inheritance.  The  customs  upon  which  these  rules  of  pro- 
prietary possession  and  inheritance  depend,  are  deter- 
mined and  modified  by  the  condition  and  progress  of  the 
social  organization.  The  growth  of  property  is  thus 
closely  connected  with  the  increase  of  inventions  and 
discoveries,  and  with  the  improvement  of  social  institu- 
tions which  mark  the  several  ethnical  periods  of  human 
progress. 

I.     Property  in  the  Status  of  Savagery. 

In  any  view  of  the  case,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of 
the  condition  of  mankind  in  this  early  period  of  the'vc 

535 


536  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 


existence,  when  divested  of  all  they  Had  gained  through 
/nventions  and  discoveries,  and  through  the  growth  of 
ideas  embodied  in  institutions,  usages  and  customs.    Hu- 
man progress  from  a  state  of  absolute  ignorance  and  in- 
experience was  slow  in  time,  but  geometrical  in  ratio. 
Alankind  may  be  traced  by  a  chain  of  necessary  infer- 
ences back  to  a  time  when,  'ignorant  of  fire,  without  artic- 
ulate language,  and  without  artificial  weapons,  they  de- 
pended, like  the  wild    animals,    upon    the    spontaneous 
fruits  of  the  earth.     Slowly,  almost  imperceptibly,  they 
advanced  through  savagery,  from  gesture  language  and 
imperfect  sounds  to  articulate  speech;  from  the  club,  as 
the   first  weapon,   to  the   spear  pointed   with   flint,   and 
finally  to  the  bow  and  arrow;  from  the  flint-knife  and 
chisel  to  the  stone  axe  and  hammer;  from  the  ozier  and 
cane  basket  to  the  basket  coated  with  clay,  which  gave  a 
vessel  for  boiling  food  with  fire ;  and,  finally,  to  the  art 
of  pottery,  which  gave  a  vessel  able  to  withstand  the  fire. 
In  the  means  of  subsistence,  they  advanced  from  natural 
fruits  in  a  restricted  habitat  to  scale  and  shell  fish  on 
the  coasts  of  the  sea,  and  finally  to  bread  roots  and  game. 
Rope  and  string-making  from'  filaments  of  bark,  a  spe- 
cies of  cloth   made   of  vegetable   pulp,     the  tanning  of 
skins  to  be  used  as  apparel  and  as  a  covering  for  tents, 
and  finally  the  house  constructed  of  poles  and  covered 
with  bark,  or  made  of  plank  split  by  stone  wedges,  be- 
long, with  those  previously  named,  to  the  Status  of  Sav- 
agery.    Among  minor  inventions  may  be  mentioned  the 
fire-drill,  the  moccasin  and  the  snow-shoe. 

Before  the  close  of  this  period,  mankind  had  learned 
to  support  themselves  in  numbers  in  comparison  with 
primitive  times;  they  had  propagated  themselves  o^'^- 
the  face  of  the  earth,  and  come  into  possession  of  all  .wc 
possibilities  of  the  continents  in  favor  of  human  advance- 
ment. In  social  organization,  they  had  advanced  from 
the  consanguine  horde  into  tribes  organized  in  gei 
and  thus  became  possessed  of  the  germs  of  the  principal 
governmental  institutions.  The  human  race  was  now 
successfully  launched  upon  its  great  career  for  the  at- 
tainment of  civilization,  which  even  tlien,  with  articulate 


THB  THREE   RULES   OF   INHERITANCE  53t 

language  among  inventions,  with  the  art  of  pottery 
among  arts,  and  with  the  gentes  among  institutions,  was 
substantially  assured. 

The  period  of  savagery  wrought  immense  changes  in 
the  condition  of  mankind.  That  portion,  which  led  the 
advance,  had  finally  organized  gentile  society  and  devel- 
oped small  tribes  with  villages  here  and  there  which 
tended  to  stimulate  the  inventive  capacities.  Their  rude 
energies  and  ruder  arts  had  been  chiefly  devoted  to  sub- 
sistence. Ihey  had  not  attained  to  the  village  stockade 
for  defense,  nor  to  farinaceous  food,  and  the  scourge  of 
cannibalism  still  pursued  them.  The  arts,  inventions  and 
institutions  named  represent  nearly  the  sum  of  the  acqui- 
sitions of  mankind  in  savagery,  with  the  exception  of  the 
marvelous  progress  in  language.  In  the  aggregate  it 
seems  small,  but  it  was  immense  potentially ;  because  it 
embraced  the  rudiments  of  language,  of  government,  of 
the  family,  of  religion,  of  house  architecture  and  of 
property,  together  with  the  principal  germs  of  the  arts 
of  life.  All  these  their  descendants  wrought  out  more 
fully  in  the  period  of  barbarism,  and  their  civilized  de- 
scendants are  still  perfecting. 

But  the  property  of  savages  was  inconsiderable.  Their 
ideas  concerning  its  value,  its  desirability  and  its  inherit- 
ance were  feeble.  Rude  weapons,  fabrics,  utensils,  appa- 
rel, implements  of  flint,  stone  and  bone,  and  personal 
ornaments  represent  the  chief  items  of  property  in  sav- 
age life.  A  passion  for  its  possession  had  scarcely  been 
formed  in  their  minds,  because  the  thing  itself  scarcely 
existed.  It  was  left  to  the  then  distant  period  of  civili- 
zation to  develop  into  full  vitality  that  "greed  of  gain" 
''/'}»  lucri),  which  is  now  such  a  commanding  force 
in  tHe  human  mind.  Lands,  as  yet  hardly  a  subject  of 
property,  were  owned  by  the  tribes  in  common,  while 
'  -- '-"lout  houses  were  owned  jointly  by  their  occupants, 
.^pw..  articles  purely  personal  which  were  increasing 
with  the  slow  progress  of  inventions,  the  great  passion 
was  nourishing  its  nascent  powers.  Those  esteemed  most 
valuable  were  deposited  in  the  grave  of  the  deceased 
proprietor  for  his  continued  use  in  the  spirit-land.   What 


588  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

remained  was  sufficient  to  raise  the  question  of  its  inher- 
itance. Of  the  manner  of  its  distribution  before  the  or- 
ganization into  gentes,  our  information  is  Hmited,  or  al- 
together wanting.  "With  the  institution  of  the  gens  came 
in  the  first  great  rule  of  inheritance,  which  distributed 
the  effects  of  a  deceased  person  among  his  gentiles. 
Practically  they  were  appropriated  by  the  nearest  of  kin ; 
but  the  principle  was  general,  that  the  property  should 
remain  in  the  gens  of  the  decedent,  and  be  distributed 
among  its  members.  This  principle  was  maintained  into 
civilization  by  the  Grecian  and  Latin  gentes.  Children 
inherited  from  their  mother,  but  took  nothing  from  their 
reputed  father. 

II.     Property  in  the  Lower  Status  of  Barbarism. 

From  the  invention  of  pottery  to  the  domestication  of 
animals,  or,  as  an  equivalent,  the  cultivation  of  maize 
and  plants  by  irrigation,  the  duration  of  the  period  must 
have  been  shorter  than  that  of  savagery.  With  the  ex- 
ception of  the  art  of  pottery,  finger  weaving  and  the  art 
of  cultivation,  in  America,  which  gave  farinaceous  food, 
no  great  invention  or  discovery  signalized  this  ethnical 
period.  It  was  more  distinguished  for  progress  in  the 
development  of  institutions.  Finger  weaving,  with  warp 
and  woof,  seems  to  belong  to  this  period,  and  it  must  rank 
as  one  of  the  greatest  of  inventions ;  but  it  cannot  be 
certainly  affirmed  that  the  art  was  not  attained  in  sav- 
agery. The  Iroquois  and  other  tribes  of  America  in  the 
same  status  manufactured  belts  and  burden-straps  with 
warp  and  woof  of  excellent  quality  and  finish ;  using  fine 
twine  made  of  filaments  of  elm  and  basswood  bark,  ^ 
The  principles  of  this  great  invention,  which  has  since 
clothed  the  human  family,  were  perfectly  realized;  but 
they  were  unable  to  extend  it  to  the  production  of  the 
woven  garment.  Picture  writing  also  seems  to  have 
made  its  first  appearance  in  this  period.  If  it  originated 
earlier,  it  now  received  a  very  considerable  development. 
It  is  interesting  as  one  of  the  stages  of  an  art  which  cul- 
minated in  the  invention  of  a  phonetic  alphabet.     The 

1  "Leag-ue  of  the  Iroquois,"  p.  364. 


THE   THREE   RULES   OF   INHERITANCE  539 

series  of  connected  inventions  seem  to  have  been  the  fol- 
lowing:  I.  Gesture  Language,  or  the  language  of  per- 
sonal symbols ;  2.  Picture  Writing,  or  idiographic  sym- 
bols f  3.  Hieroglyphs,  or  conventional  symbols ;  4.  Hiero- 
glyphs of  phonetic  power,  or  phonetic  symbols  used  in  a 
syllabus ;  and  5,  a  Phonetic  Alphabet,  or  written  sounds. 
Since  a  language  of  written  sounds  was  a  growth 
through  successive  stages  of  development,  the  rise  of  its 
antecedent  processes  is  both  important  and  instructive. 
The  characters  on  the  Copan  monuments  are  apparently 
hieroglyphs  of  the  grade  of  conventional  symbols.  They 
show  that  the  American  aborigines,  who  practiced  the 
first  three  forms,  were  proceeding  independently  in  the 
direction  of  a  phonetic  alphabet. 

The  invention  of  the  stockade  as  a  means  of  village 
defense,  of  a  raw-hide  shield  as  a  defense  against  the 
arrow,  which  had  now  become  a  deadly  missile,  of  the 
several  varieties  of  the  war-club,  armed  with  an  encased 
stone  or  with  a  point  of  deer  horn,  seem  also  to  belong 
to  this  period.  At  all  events  they  were  in  common  use 
among  the  American  Indian  tribes  in  the  Lower  Status 
of  barbarism  when  discovered.  The  spear  pointed  with 
flint  or  bone  was  not  a  customary  weapon  with  the  forest 
tribes,  though  sometimes  used.  ^  This  weapon  belongs 
to  the  period  of  savagery,  before  the  bow  and  arrou- 
were  invented,  and  reappears  as  a  prominent  weapon  in 
the  L^pper  Status  of  barbarism,  when  the  copper-pointed 
spear  came  into  use,  and  close  combat  became  the  mode 
of  warfare.  The  bow  and  arrow  and  the  war-club  were 
the  principal  weapons  of  the  American  aborigines  in  the 
Lower  Status  of  barbarism:  Some  progress  was  made 
in  pottery  in  the  increased  size  of  the  vessels  produced, 
and  in  their  ornamentation;^  but  it  remained  extremely 
rude  to  the  end  of  the  period.  There  was  a  sensible  ad- 
vance in  house  architecture,  in  the  size  and  mode  of  con- 

I  For  example,  the  Ojlbwas  used  the  lance  or  spear.  She- 
ml'-gun,  pointed  with  flint  or  bone. 

J  The  Creeks  made  earthen  vessels  holding  from  two  to  ten 
gallons  (Adair's  '"History  of  American  Indians,"  p.  424^:  and 
the  Iroquois  ornamented  their  jars  and  pipes  witli  miniature 
human  faces  attached  as  buttons.  This  discovery  was  recently 
made  by  Mr.  F.  A.  Gushing,  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution. 


§40  ANCIENT  SOCIEf  f 

struction.  Among  minor  inventions  were  the  air-gun  for 
bird-shooting,  the  wooden  mortar  and  pounder  for  reduc- 
ing maize  to  flour,  and  the  stone  mortar  for  preparing 
paints ;  earthen  and  stone  pipes,  with  the  use  of  tobacco ; 
bone  and  stone  implements  of  higher  grades,  with  stone 
hammers  and  mauls,  the  handle  and  upper  part  of  the 
stone  being  encased  in  raw  hide ;  and  moccasins  and  belts 
ornamented  with  porcupine  quills.  Some  of  these  inven- 
tions were  borrowed,  not  unlikely,  from  tribes  in  the 
Middle  Status ;  for  it  was  by  this  process  constantly  re- 
peated that  the  more  advanced  tribes  lifted  up  those  be- 
low them,  as  fast  as  the  latter  were  able  to  appreciate 
and  to  appropriate  the  means  of  progress. 

The  cultivation  of  maize  and  plants  gave  the  people 
unleavened  bread,  the  Indian  succotash  and  hominy.  It 
also  tended  to  introduce  a  new  species  of  property,  name- 
ly, cultivated  lands  or  gardens.  Although  lands  were 
owned  in  common  by  the  tribe,  a  possessory  right  to  cul- 
tivated land  was  now  recognized  in  the  individual,  or  in 
the  group,  which  became  a  subject  of  inheritance.  The 
group  united  in  a  common  household  were  mostly  of  the 
same  gens,  and  the  rule  of  inheritance  -would  not  allow 
it  to  be  detached  from  the  kinship. 

The  property  and  eflfects  of  husband  and  wife  were 
kept  distinct,  and  remained  after  their  demise  in  the  gens 
to  which  each  respectively  belonged.  The  wife  and  chil- 
dren took  nothing  from  the  husband  and  father,  and  the 
husband  took  nothing  from  the  wife.  Among  the  Iro- 
quois, if  a  man  died  leaving  a  wife  and  children,  his  prop- 
erty was  distributed  among  his  gentiles  in  such  a  manner 
that  his  sisters  and  their  children,  and  his  maternal  un- 
cles, would  receive  the  most  of  it.  His  brothers  might 
receive  a  small  portion.  If  a  woman  died,  leaving  a 
husband  and  children,  her  children,  her  sisters,  and  her 
mother  and  her  sisters  inherited  her  effects ;  but  the 
greater  portion  was  assigned  to  "her  children.  In  each 
case  the  property  remained  in  the  gens.  Among  the 
Ojibwas,  the  effects  of  a  mother  were  distributed  among 
her  cliildren,  if  old  enough  to  use  them ;  otherwise,  or  in 
default  of  children,  they  went  to  her  sisters,  and  to  her 


THE  THREE   RULES   OF   INHERITANCE  541 

mother  and  her  sisters,  to  the  exclusion  of  her  brothers. 
Although  they  had  changed  descent  to  the  male  line,  the 
inheritance  still  followed  the  rule  which  prevailed  when 
descent  was  in  the  female  line. 

The  variety  and  amount  of  property  were  greater  than 
in  savagery,  but  still  not  sufficient  to  develop  a  strong 
sentiment  in  relation  to  inheritance.  In  the  mode  of  dis- 
tribution above  given  may  be  recognized,  as  elsewhere 
stated,  the  germ  of  the  second  great  rule  of  inheritance, 
which  gave  the  property  to  the  agnatic  kindred,  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  remaining  gentiles.  Agnation  and 
agnatic  kindred,  as  now  defined,  assume  descent  in 
in  the  male  line;  but  the  persons  included  would 
be  very  different  from  those  with  descent  in  the 
female  line.  The  principle  is  the  same  in  both  cases,  and 
the  terms  seem  as  applicable  in  the  one  as  in  the  other. 
With  descent  in  the  female  line,  the  agnates  are  those 
persons  who  can  trace  their  descent  through  females  ex- 
clusively from  the  same  common  ancestor  with  the  in- 
testate ;  in  the  other  case,  who  can  trace  their  descent 
through  males  exclusively.  It  is  the  blood  connection  of 
persons  within  the  gens  by  direct  descent,  in  a  given 
line,  from  the  same  common  ancestor  which  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  agnatic  relationship. 

At  the  present  time,  among  the  advanced  Indian  tribes, 
repugnance  to  gentile  inheritance  has  begun  to  manifest 
itself.  In  some  it  has  been  overthrown,  and  an  exclusive 
inheritance  in  children  substituted  in  its  place.  Evidence 
of  this  repugnance  has  elsewhere  been  given,  among  the 
Iroquois,  Creeks,  Cherokees,  Choctas,  Menominees, 
Crows  and  Ojibwas,  w'ith  references  to  the  devices 
adopted  to  enable  fathers  to  give  their  property,  now 
largely  increased  in  amount,  to  their  children. 

The  diminution  of  cannibalism,  that  brutalizing 
scourge  of  savagery,  was  very  marked  in  the  Older  Per- 
iod of  barbarism.  It  was  abandoned  as  a  common  prac- 
tice ;  but  remained  as  a  war  practice,  as  elsewhere  ex- 
plained, through  this,  and  into  the  Middle  Period.  In 
this  form  it  was  found  in  the  principal  tribes  of  the 
United  States,  Mexico,  and  Central  America.     The  ac- 


542  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

quisition  of  farinaceous  food  was  the  principal  means  of 
extricating  mankind  from  this  savage  custom. 

We  have  now  passed  over,  with  a  mere  glance,  two 
ethnical  periods,  which  covered  four-fifths,  at  least,  of 
the  entire  existence  of  mankind  upon  the  earth.  While 
in  the  Lower  Status,  the  higher  attributes  of  man  began 
to  manifest  themselves.  Personal  dignity,  eloquence  in 
speech,  religious  sensibility,  rectitude,  manliness  and 
courage  were  now  common  traits  of  character ;  but  cru- 
elty, treachery  and  fanaticism  were  equallv  common. 
Element  worship  in  religion,  with  a  dim  conception  of 
personal  gods,  and  of  a  Great  Spirit,  rude  verse-making, 
joint-tenement  houses,  and  bread  from  maize,  belong  to 
this  period.  It  also  produced  the  syndyasmian  family, 
and  the  confederacy  of  tribes  organized  in  gentes  and 
phratries.  The  imagination,  that  great  faculty  which 
has  contributed  so  largely  to  the  elevation  of  mankind, 
was  now  producing  an  unwritten  literature  of  myths, 
legends  and  traditions,  which  had  already  become  a  pow- 
erful stimulus  upon  the  race. 

III.     Property  in  the  Middle  Status  of  Barbarism. 

The  condition  of  mankind  in  this  ethnical  period  has 
been  more  completely  lost  than  that  of  any  other.  It  was 
exhibited  by  the  Village  Indians  of  North  and  South 
America  in  barbaric  splendor  at  the  epoch  of  their  dis- 
covery. Their  governmental  institutions,  their  religious 
tenets,  their  plan  of  domestic  life,  their  arts  and  their 
rules  in  relation  to  the  ownership  and  inheritance  of 
property,  might  have  been  'zompletely  obtained ;  but  the 
opportunity  was  allowed  to  escape.  All  that  remains  are 
scattered  portions  of  the  truth  buried  in  misconceptions 
and  romantic  tales. 

This  period  opens  in  the  Eastern  hemisphere  with  the 
domestication  of  animals,  and  in  the  Western  with  the 
appearance  of  the  Village  Indians,  living  in  large  joint- 
tenement  houses  of  adobe  brick,  and,  in  some  areas,  of 
stone  laid  in  courses.  It  was  attended  with  the  cultiva- 
tion of  maize  and  plants  by  irrigation,  which  required 
artificial  canals,  and  garden  beds  laid  out  in  squares, 
with  raised  ridges  to  contain  the  water  until  absorbed, 


THE  THREE  RTILES   OF   INHERITANCE  543 

When  discovered,  they  were  well  advanced  toward  the 
close  of  the  Middle  Period,  a  portion  of  them  having 
made  bronze,  which  brought  them  near  the  higher  proc- 
ess of  smelting  iron  ore.  The  joint-tenement  house  was 
in  the  nature  of  a  fortress,  and  held  an  intermediate  po- 
sition between  the  stockaded  village  of  the  Lower,  and 
the  walled  city  of  the  Upper  Status.  There  were  no 
cities,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  in  America  when 
discovered.  In  the  art  of  war  they  had  made  but  little 
progress,  except  in  defense,  by  the  construction  of  great 
houses  generally  impregnable  to  Indian  assault.  But 
they  had  invented  the  quilted  mantle  {escaupiles),  stuffed 
with  cotton,  as  a  further  shield  against  the  arrow,  ^  and 
the  two-edged  sword  (macuahnitl),'^  each  edge  having 
a  row  of  angular  flint  points  imbedded  in  the  wooden 
blade.  They  still  used  the  bow  and  arrow,  the  spear, 
and  the  war-club,  flint  knives  and  hatchets,  and  stone 
implements,  ^  although  they  had  the  copper  axe  and 
chisel,  which  for  some  reason  never  came  into  general 
use. 

To  maize,  beans,  squashes  and  tobacco,  were  now 
added  cotton,  pepper,  tomato,  cacao,  and  the  care  of  cer- 
tain fruits.  A  beer  was  made  by  fermenting  the  juice 
of  the  maguey.  The  Iroquois,  however,  had  produced 
a  similar  beverage  by  fermenting  maple  sap.  Earthen 
vessels  of  capacity  to  hold  several  gallons,  of  fine  texture 
and  superior  ornamentation  were  produced  by  improved 
methods  in  the  ceramic  art.  Bowls,  pots  and  water- jars 
were  manufactured  in  abundance.  The  discovery  and 
use  of  the  native  metals  first  for  ornaments,  and  finally 
for  implements  and  utensils,  such  as  the  copper  axe  and 
chisel,  belong  to  this  period.  The  melting  of  these  metals 
in  the  crucible,  with  the  probable  use  of  the  blow-pipe 
and  charcoal,  and  casting  them  in  moulds,  the  produc- 
tion of  bronze,  rude  stone  sculptures,  the  woven  gar- 
ment of  cotton.  ■*  the  house  of  dressed  stone,  ideographs 


1  Herrera,  1.  c,  iv,  16. 

2  lb.,   ill,   13;   Iv,   16,   137.    Clavigero,   11.    165. 

5    Clavigero,   11.   238.    Herrera.   11.   145;   Iv,   133. 
■4  Hakluyt's   "Coll.   of  Voyages,"  1.  c.  111.   377. 


544  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

or  hieroglyphs  cut  on  the  grave-posts  of  deceased  chiefs, 
the  calendar  for  measuring  time,  and  the  solstitial  stone 
for  marking  the  seasons,  cyclopean  walls,  the  domesti- 
cation of  the  llama,  of  a  species  of  dog,  of  the  turkey 
and  other  fowls,  belong  to  the  same  period  in  America. 
A  priesthood  organized  in  a  hierarchy,  and  distinguished 
by  a  costume,  personal  gods  with  idols  to  represent  them, 
and  human  sacrifices,  appear  for  the  first  time  in  this 
ethnical  period.  Two  large  Indian  pueblos,  Mexico  and 
Cusco,  now  appear,  containing  over  twenty  thousand  in- 
habitants, a  number  unknown  in  the  previous  period. 
The  aristocratic  element  in  society  began  to  manifest  it- 
self in  feeble  forms  among  the  chiefs,  civil  and  military, 
through  increased  numbers  under  the  same  government, 
and  the  growing  complexity  of  affairs. 

Turning  to  the  Eastern  hemisphere,  we  find  its  native 
tribes,  in  the  corresponding  period,  with  domestic  ani- 
mals yielding  them  a  meat  and  milk  subsistence,  but  prob- 
ably without  horticultural  and  without  farinaceous  food. 
When  the  great  discovery  was  made  that  the  wild  horse, 
cow,  sheep,  ass,  sow  and  goat  might  be  tamed,  and,  when 
produced  in  flocks  and  herds,  become  a  source  of  perma- 
nent subsistence  it  must  have  given  a  powerful  impulse  to 
human  progress.  But  the  efifect  would  not  become 
general  until  pastoral  life  for  the  creation  and  main- 
tenance of  flocks  and  herds  became  established.  Europe, 
as  a  forest  area  in  the  main,  was  unadapted  to  the  pastoral 
state ;  but  the  grass  plains  of  high  Asia,  and  upon  the 
Euphrates,  the  Tigris  and  other  rivers  of  Asia,  were  the 
natural  homes  of  the  pastoral  tribes.  Thither  they  would 
naturally  tend ;  and  to  these  areas  we  trace  our  own  re- 
mote ancestors,  where  they  were  found  confronting  like 
pastoral  Semitic  tribes.  The  cultivation  of  cereals  and 
plants  must  have  preceded  their  migration  from  the  grass 
plains  into  the  forest  areas  of  Western  Asia  and  of 
Europe.  It  would  be  forced  upon  them  by  the  necessities 
of  the  domestic  animals  now  incorporated  in  their  plan  of 
life.  There  are  reasons,  therefore,  for  supposing  that  the 
cultivation  of  cereals  by  the  Aryan  tribes  preceded  their 
western  migration,    with   the   exception   perhaps   of  the 


THE   THREE   RULES   OF   INHERITANCE  54$ 

Celts.  Woven  fabrics  of  flax  and  wool,  and  bronze 
implements  and  weapons  appear  in  this  period  in  the 
Eastern  liemisphere. 

Such  v^ere  th.e  inv,entions  and  discoveries  Vvdiich  sig- 
nalized the  Middle  Period  of  barbarism.  Society  was  now 
more  highly  organized,  and  its  affairs  were  becoming 
more  complex.  Differences  in  the  culture  of  the  two 
hemispheres  now  existed  in  consequence  of  their  unequal 
endov/ments ;  but  the  main  current  of  progress  was 
steadily  upv/ard  to  a  knowledge  of  iron  and  its  uses.  To 
cross  t]-:e  barrier  into  the  Upper  Status,  metallic  tools  able 
to  hold  an  edge  and  point  were  indispensable.  Iron  was 
the  only  metal  able  to  answer  these  requirements.  The 
most  advanced  tribes  were  arrested  at  this  barrier,  await- 
ing tlie  invention  of  the  process  of  smelting  iron  ore. 

From  the  foregoing  considerations  it  is  evident  that  a 
large  increase  of  personal  property  had  now  occurred, 
and  some  changes  in  the  relations  of  persons  to  land.  The 
territorial  domain  still  belonged  to  the  tribe  in  common ; 
but  a  portion  was  now  set  apart  for  the  support  of  the 
government,  another  for  religious  uses,  and  another  and 
more  important  portion,  that  from  which  the  people  de- 
rived their  subsistence,  was  divided  among  the  several 
gentcs,  or  communities  of  persons  who  resided  in  the 
same  pueblo  (supra,  p.  200).  That  any  person  owned 
lands  or  houses  in  his  own  right,  with  power  to  sell  and 
convey  in  fee-simple  to  whomsoever  he  pleased,  is  not 
only  unestablished  but  improbable.  Their  mode  of  owning 
their  lands  in  common,  by  gentes,  or  by  communities  of 
persons,  their  joint-tenement  houses,  and  their  mode  of 
occupation  by  related  families,  precluded  the  individual 
ownership  of  houses  or  of  lands.  A  right  to  sell  an 
interest  in  such  lands  or  in  such  houses,  and  to  transfer 
the  same  to  a  stranger,  would  break  up  their  plan  of  life.' 

I  The  Rev.  Samupl  Gorman,  a  missi')nary  amcriK  tlie  Laguna 
Pueblo  Indians,  remarks  in  an  address  before  the  Historical  So- 
ciety of  New  Mexico  (p.  12),  that  "the  riKht  of  property  be- 
longs to  the  female  part  of  the  family,  and  descends  In  that 
line  from  mother  to  daughter.  Their  land  is  held  in  common, 
as  the  property  of  the  community,  but  after  a  person  cultivates 
a  lot  he  has  personal  claim  to  it,  "which  he  can  sell  to  one  of 


546  ANCIENT   SOCIETY 

The  possessory  right,  which  we  must  suppose  existed  in 
individuals  or  in  families,  was  inalienable,  except  within 
the  gens,  and  on  the  demise  of  the  person  would  pass  by 
inheritance  to  his  or  her  gentile  heirs.  Joint-tenement 
houses,  and  lands  in  common,  indicate  a  plan  of  life  ad- 
verse to  individual  ownership. 

The  Moqui  Village  Indians,  besides  their  seven  large 
pueblos  and  their  gardens,  now  have  flocks  of  sheep, 
horses  and  mules,  and  considerable  other  personal  prop- 
erty. They  manufacture  earthen  vessels  of  many  sizes 
and  of  excellent  quality,  and  woolen  blankets  in  looms, 
and  with  yarn  of  their  own  production.  Major  J.  W. 
Powell  noticed  the  following  case  at  the  pueblo  of  Oray- 
be,  which  shows  that  the  husband  acquires  no  rights  over 
the  property  of  the  wife,  or  over  the  children  of  the 
marriage.  A  Zunian  married  an  Oraybe  woman,  and  had 
by  her  three  children.  He  resided  with  them  at  Oraybe 
until  his  wife  died,  which  occurred  while  Major  Powell 
was  at  the  pueblo.  The  relatives  of  the  deceased  wife 
took  possession  of  her  children  and  of  her  household 
property ;  leaving  to  him  his  horse,  clothing  and  weapons. 
Certain  blankets  which  belonged  to  him  he  was  allowed 
to  take,  but  those  belonging  to  his  wife  remained.  He  left 
the  pueblo  with  Major  Powell,  saying  he  would  go  with 
him  to  Santa  Fe,  and  then  return  to  his  own  people  at 
Zufii.  Another  case  of  a  similar  kind  occurred  at  another 
of  the  Moqui  pueblos  (She-pow-e-luv-ih)  ,  which  also 
came  to  the  notice  of  my  informant.  A  woman  died,  leav- 
ing children  and  a  husband,  as  well  as  property.  The 
children  and  the  property  were  taken  by  the  deceased 
wife's  relatives ;  all  the  husband  was  allowed  to  take  was 
his  clothing.  Whether  he  was  a  Moqui  Indian  or  from 
another  tribe.  Major  Powell,  who  saw  the  person,  did 
not  learn.  It  appears  from  these  cases  that  the  children 
belonged  to  the  mother,  and  not  to  the  father,  and  that  he 

the  community."  .  .  .  Their  women,  generaUy,  have  control  of, 
the  granary,  and  they  are  more  provident  than  tlieir  Spanish 
neighbors  about  the  future.  Ordinarily  they  try  to  have  a 
year's  provisions  on  hand.  It  is  only  when  two  yeard  of  scarc- 
ity succeed  each  other,  that  Pueblos,  a?  &  i^f/r^muptty,  suffer 
hunger." 


THE  THREE  RULES   OF   INHERITANCE  547 

was  not  allowed  to  take  them  even  after  the  mother's 
death.  Such  also  was  the  usage  among  the  Iroquois  and 
other  northern  tribes.  Furthermore,  the  property  of  the 
wife  was  kept  distinct,  and  belonged  to  her  relatives  after 
her  death.  It  tends  to  show  that  the  wife  took  nothing 
from  her  husband,  as  an  implication  from  the  fact  that 
the  husband  took  nothing  from  the  wife.  Elsewhere  it 
has  been  shown  that  this  was  the  usage  among  the  Village 
Indians  of  Mexico. 

Women,  as  well  as  men,  not  unlikely,  had  a  possessory 
right  to  such  rooms  and  sections  of  these  pueblo  houses 
as  they  occupied ;  and  they  doubtless  transmitted  these 
rights  to  their  nearest  of  kin,  under  established  regula- 
tions. We  need  to  know  how  these  sections  of  each  pueblo 
are  owned  and  inherited,  whether  the  possessor  has  the 
right  to  sell  and  transfer  to  a  stranger,  and  if  not,  the 
nature  and  limits  of  his  possessory  right.  We  also  need 
to  know  who  inherits  the  property  of  the  males,  and  who 
inherits  the  property  of  the  females.  A  small  amount  of 
well-directed  labor  would  furnish  the  information  now 
so  much  desired. 

The  Spanish  writers  have  left  the  land  tenure  of  the 
southern  tribes  in  inextricable  confusion.  When  they 
found  a  community  of  persons  owning  lands  in  common, 
which  they  could  not  alienate,  and  that  one  person  amon^ 
them  was  recognized  as  their  chief,  they  at  once  treated 
these  lands  as  a  feudal  estate,  the  chief  as  a  feudal  lord, 
and  the  people  who  owned  the  lands  in  common  as  his 
vassals.  At  best,  it  was  a  perversion  of  the  facts.  One 
thing  is  plain,  namely,  that  these  lands  were  owned  in 
common  by  a  community  of  persons ;  but  one,  not  less 
essential,  is  not  given ;  namely,  the  bond  of  union  which 
held  these  persons  together.  If  a  gens,  or  a  part  of  a  gens, 
the  whole  subject  would  be  at  once  understood. 

Descent  in  the  female  line  still  remained  in  some  of 
the  tribes  of  Mexico  and  Central  America,  while  in 
others,  and  probably  in  the  larger  portion,  it  had  been 
changed  to  the  male  line.  The  influence  of  property  must 
have  caused  the  change,  that  children  might  participate 
as  agnates  in  the  inheritance  of  their  father's  property. 


548  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

Among  the  Mayas,  descent  was  in  the  male  hne,  while 
among  the  Aztecs,  Tezcucans,  Tlacopans  and  Tlascalans, 
it  is  difficult  to  determine  whether  it  was  in  the  male  or 
the  female  line.  It  is  probable  that  descent  was  being 
changed  to  the  male  line  among  the  Village  Indians 
generally,  with  remains  of  the  archaic  rule  manifesting 
themselves,  as  in  the  case  of  the  office  of  Teuctli.  The 
change  would  not  overthrow  gentile  inheritance.  It  is 
claimed  by  a  number  of  Spanish  writers  that  the  children, 
and  in  some  cases  the  eldest  son,  inherited  the  property 
of  a  deceased  father ;  but  such  statements,  apart  from  an 
exposition  of  their  system,  are  of  little  value. 

Among  the  Village  Indians,  we  should  expect  to  find 
the  second  great  rule  of  inheritance  which  distributed  the 
property  among  the  agnatic  kindred.  With  descent  in  the 
male  line,  the  children  of  a  deceased  person  would  stand 
at  the  head  of  the  agnates,  and  very  naturally  receive  the 
greater  portion  of  the  inheritance.  It  is  not  probable  that 
the  third  great  rule,  which  gave  an  exclusive  inheritance 
to  the  children  of  the  deceased  owner,  had  become 
established  among  them.  The  discussion  of  inheritances 
by  the  earlier  and  later  writers  is  unsatisfactory,  and  de- 
void of  accurate  information.  Institutions,  usages  and 
customs  still  governed  the  question,  and  could  alone 
explain  the  system.  Without  better  evidence  than  we  now 
possess,  an  exclusive  inheritance  by  children  cannot  be 
asserted. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE   THREE   RULES   OF   INHERITANCE — CONTINUED 

The  last  great  period  of  barbarism  was  never  entered 
by  the  American  aborigines.  It  commenced  in  the 
Eastern,  according  to  the  scheme  adopted,  with  the  pro- 
duction and  use  of  iron. 

The  process  of  smelting  iron  ore  was  the  invention  of 
inventions,  as  elsewhere  suggested,  beside  which  all  other 
inventions  and  discoveries  hold  a  subordinate  position. 
Mankind,  notwithstanding  a  knowledge  of  bronze,  were 
still  arrested  in  their  progress  for  the  want  of  efficient 
metallic  tools,  and  for  the  want  of  a  metal  of  sufficient 
strength  and  hardness  for  mechanical  appliances.  All 
these  qualities  were  found  for  the  first  time  in  iron.  The 
accelerated  progress  of  human  intelligence  dates  from 
this  invention.  This  ethnical  period,  which  is  made 
forever  memorable,  was,  in  many  respects,  the  most 
brilliant  and  remarkable  in  the  entire  experience  of  man- 
kind. It  is  so  overcrowded  with  achievements  as  to  lead 
to  a  suspicion  that  many  of  the  works  ascribed  to  it  be- 
long to  the  previous  period. 

IV.  Property  in  the  Upper  Status  of  Barbarism. — Near 
the  end  of  this  period,  property  in  masses,  consisting  of 
many  kinds  and  held  by  individual  ownership,  began  to 
be  common,  through  settled  agriculture,  manufactures, 
local  trade  and  foreign  commerce ;  but  the  old  tenure  of 
lands  under  which  they  were  held  in  common  had  not 
given  place,  except  in  part,  to  ownership  in  severally. 
Systematic  slavery  originated  in  this  status.  It  stands 
directly  connected  with  the  production    of  property.  Out 

My 


550  aKcient  SOClETif 

of  it  came  the  patriarchal  family  of  the  Hebrew  type,  and 
the  similar  family  of  the  Latin  tribes  under  paternal 
power,  as  well  as  a  modified  form  of  the  same  family 
among  the  Grecian  tribes.  From  these  causes,  but  more 
particularly  from  the  increased  abundance  of  subsistence 
through  field  agriculture,  nations  began  to  develop, 
numbering  many  thousands  under  one  government,  where 
before  they  would  be  reckoned  by  a  few  thousands.  The 
localization  of  tribes  in  fixed  areas  and  in  fortified  cities, 
with  the  increase  of  the  numbers  of  the  people,  intensi- 
fied the  struggle  for  the  possession  of  the  most  desirable 
territories.  It  tended  to  advance  the  art  of  war,  and  to 
increase  the  rewards  of  individual  prowess.  These 
changes  of  condition  and  of  the  plan  of  life  indicate  the 
approach  of  civilization,  which  was  to  overthrow  gentile 
and  establish   political  society. 

Although  the  inhabitants  of  the  Western  hemisphere 
had  no  part  in  the  experience  which  belongs  to  this  status, 
they  were  following  down  the  same  lines  on  which  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Eastern  had  passed.  They  had  fallen 
behind  the  advancing  columm  of  the  human  race  by  just 
the  distance  measured  by  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism 
and  the  superadded  years  of  civilization. 

We  are  now  to  trace  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  property 
in  this  status  of  advancement,  as  shown  by  its  recognition 
in  kind,  and  by  the  rules  that  existed  with  respect  to  its 
ownership  and  inheritance. 

The  earliest  laws  of  the  Greeks,  Romans  and  Hebrews, 
after  civilization  had  commenced,  did  little  more  than 
turn  into  legal  enactments  the  results  which  their 
previous  experience  had  embodied  in  usages  and  customs. 
Having  the  final  laws  and  the  previous  archaic  rules,  the 
intermediate  changes,  when  not  expressly  known,  may  be 
inferred  with  tolerable  certainty. 

At  the  close  of  the  Later  Period  of  barbarism,  great 
changes  had  occurred  in  the  tenure  of  lands.  It  was 
gradually  tending  to  two  forms  of  ownership,  namely,  by 
the  state' and  by  individuals.  But  this  result  was  not  fully 
secured  until  after  civilization  had  been  attained.  Lands 
among  the  Greeks  were  still  held,  as  we  have  seen,  some 


a*aE  THREE   RULES   OF   INHERITANCE  5o1 

by  the  tribes  in  common,  some  by  the  phratry  in  common 
for  rehgious  uses,  and  some  by  the  gens  in  common ;  but 
the  bulk  of  the  lands  had  fallen  under  individual  owner- 
ship in  severalty.  In  the  time  of  Solon,  while  Athenian 
society  was  still  gentile,  lands  in  general  were  owned  by 
individuals,  who  had  already  learned  to  mortgage  them ;' 
but  individual  ownership  was  not  then  a  new  thing. 
The  Roman  tribes,  from  their  first  establishment,  had  a 
public  domain,  the  Ager  Romanus;  while  lands  were 
held  by  the  curia  for  religious  uses,  by  the  gens,  and  by 
individuals  in  severalty.  After  these  social  corporations 
died  out,  the  lands  held  by  them  in  common  gradually  be- 
came private  property.  \'ery  little  is  known  beyond  the 
fact  that  certain  lands  w^ere  held  by  these  organizations 
for  special  uses,  while  individuals  were  gradually  appro- 
priating the  substance  of  the  national  areas. 

These  several  forms  of  ownership  tend  to  show  that 
the  oldest  tenure,  by  which  land  was  held,  was  by  the 
tribe  in  common ;  that  after  its  cultivation  began,  a 
portion  of  the  tribe  lands  was  divided  among  the  gentes, 
each  of  which  held  their  portion  in  common ;  and  that 
this  was  followed,  in  course  of  time,  by  allotments  to  in- 
dividuals, which  allotments  finally  ripened  into  individual 
ownership  in  severalty.  Unoccupied  and  waste  lands  still 
remained  as  the  common  property  of  the  gens,  the  tribe 
and  the  nation.  This,  substantially,  seems  to  have  been 
the  progress  of  experience  with  respect  to  the  ownership 
of  land.  Personal  property,  generally,  was  subject  to 
individual  ownership. 

The  monogamian  family  made  its  first  appearance  in 
the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  the  growth  of  which  out 
of  a  previous  syndyasmian  form  was  intimately  connected 
with  the  increase  of  property,  and  with  the  usages  in 
respect  to  its  inheritance.  Descent  had  been  changed  to 
the  male  line ;  but  all  property,  real  as  well  as  personal, 
remained,  as  it  had  been  from  time  inmiemorial, 
hereditary  in  the  gens. 

Our  principal    information    concerning    the    kinds    of 

•.   Plutarch,    in    •'Solon/'   c.    xv. 


552  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

property,  that  existed  among  the  Grecian  tribes  in  this 
period,  is  derived  from  the  Homeric  poems,  and  from  the 
early  laws  of  the  period  of  civilization  which  reflect 
ancient  usages.  Mention  is  made  in  the  Iliad  of  fences  ^ 
around  cultivated  fields,  of  an  enclosure  of  fifty  acres,  half 
of  which  was  fit  for  vines  and  the  remainder  for  tillage  ;* 
and  it  is  said  of  Tydeus  that  he  lived  in  a  mansion  rich 
in  resources,  and  had  corn-producing  fields  in  abun- 
dance. '  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  lands  were  then 
fenced  and  measured,  and  held  by  individual  ownership. 
It  indicates  a  large  degree  of  progress  in  a  knowledge  of 
property  and  its  uses.  Breeds  of  horses  were  already 
distinguished  for  particular  excellence.  *  Herds  of  cattle 
and  flocks  of  sheep  possessed  by  individuals  are  men- 
tioned, as  "sheep  of  a  rich  man  standing  countless  in  the 
fold."  °  Coined  money  was  still  unknown,  consequently 
trade  was  by  barter  of  commodities,  as  indicated  by  the 
following  lines :  "Thence  the  long-haired  Greeks  bought 
wine,  some  for  brass,  some  for  shining  iron,  others  for 
hides,  some  for  the  oxen  themselves,  and  some  for 
slaves."^  Gold  in  bars,  however,  is  named  as  passing  by 
weight  and  estimated  by  talents.'  Manufactured  articles 
of  gold,  silver,  brass  and  iron,  and  textile  fabrics  of  linen 
and  woolen  in  many  forms,  together  with  houses  and 
palaces,  are  mentioned.  It  will  not  be  necessary  to  extend 
the  illustrations.  Those  given  are  sufficient  to  indicate 
the  great  advance  society  had  attained  in  the  Upper 
Status  of  barbarism,  in  contrast  with  that  in  the  im- 
mediately previous  period. 

After  houses  and  lands,  flocks  and  herds,  and  exchange- 
able commodities  had  become  so  great  in  quantity,  and 
had  come  to  be  held  by  individual  ownership,  the  question 
of  their  inheritance  would  press  upon  human  attention 
until  the  right  was  placed  upon  a  basis  which    satisfied 


1  "Iliad,"  V,  90.     ' 

2  II,.,    ix,    r.77. 

3  Ih.,    xiv,    121. 
•(     lb.,  V,   2fi.'). 

5   It).,   Iv.   4.33.   Bnckley'.s  trans. 
°    lb.,   vil,    472,    Buckley's   trans. 
7    "Hind,"    xii,   27^. 


THE  THREE   RULES   OF   INHERITANCE  55} 

the  growing  intelligence  of  the  Greek  mind.  Archaic 
usages  would  be  modified  in  the  direction  of  later  con- 
ceptions. The  domestic  animals  were  a  possession  of 
greater  value  than  all  kinds  of  property  previously  known 
put  together.  They  served  for  food,  were  exchangeable 
for  other  commodities,  were  usable  for  redeeming 
captives,  for  paying  fines,  and  in  sacrifices  in  the 
observance  of  their  religious  rites.  Moreover,  as  they 
were  capable  of  indefinite  multiplication  in  numbers, 
their  possession  revealed  to  the  human  mind  its  first  con- 
ception of  wealth.  Following  upon  this,  in  course  of  time, 
was  the  systematical  cultivation  of  the  earth,  ^vhich 
tended  to  identify  the  family  with  the  soil,  and  render  it  a 
property-making  organization.  It  soon  found  expression, 
in  the  Latin,  Grecian  and  Hebrew  tribes,  in  the  family 
under  paternal  power,  involving  slaves  and  servants. 
Since  the  labor  of  the  father  and  his  children  became  in- 
corporated more  and  more  with  the  land,  with  the  pro- 
duction of  domestic  animals,  and  with  the  creation  of 
merchandise,  it  would  not  only  tend  to  individualize  the 
family,  now  monogamian,  but  also  to  suggest  the  superior 
claims  of  children  to  the  inheritance  of  the  property  they 
had  assisted  in  creating.  Before  lands  were  cultivated, 
flocks  and  herds  would  naturally  fall  under  the  joint 
ownership  of  persons  united  in  a  group,  on  a  basis  of  kin, 
for  subsistence.  Agnatic  inheritance  would  be  apt  to 
assert  itself  in  this  condition  of  things.  But  when  lands 
had  become  the  subject  of  property,  and  allotments  to 
individuals  had  resulted  in  individual  ownership,  the 
third  great  rule  of  inheritance,  which  gave  the  property 
to  the  children  of  the  deceased  owner,  was  certain  to 
supervene  upon  agnatic  inheritance.  There  is  no  direct 
evidence  that  strict  agnatic  inheritance  ever  existed 
among  the  Latin,  Grecian  or  Hebrew  tribes,  excepting  in 
the  reversion,  established  alike  in  Roman.  Grecian  and 
Hebrew  law ;  but  that  an  exclusive  agnatic  inheritance 
existed  in  the  early  period  may  be  inferred  from  the 
reversion. 

When  field  agriculture  had  demonstrated  tliat  the  whole 
surface  of  the  earth  could  be  made  the  subject  of  prop- 


§§4  Ai^CiENf  SOCIETY 

erty  owned  by  individuals  in  severalty,  and  it  was  found 
that  the  head  of  the  family  became  the  natural  center  of 
accumulation,  the  new  property  career  of  mankind  was 
inaugurated.  It  was  fully  done  before  the  close  of  the 
Later  Period  of  barbarism.  A  little  reflection  must  con- 
vince any  one  of  the  powerful  influence  property  would 
now  begin  to  exercise  upon  the  human  mind,  and  of  the 
great  awakening  of  new  elements  of  character  it  was 
calculated  to  produce.  Evidence  appears,  from  many 
sources,  that  the  feeble  impulse  aroused  in  the  savage 
mind  had  now  become  a  tremendous  passion  in  the  splen- 
did barbarian  of  the  heroic  age.  Neither  archaic  nor  later 
usages  could  maintain  themselves  in  such  an  advanced 
condition.  The  time  had  now  arrived  when  monogamy, 
having  assured  the  paternity  of  children,  would  assert 
and  maintain  their  exclusive  right  to  inherit  the  property 
of  their  deceased  father.  ^ 

In  the  Hebrew  tribes,  of  whose  experience  in  barbarism 
very  little  is  known,  individual  ownership  of  lands  existed 
before  the  commencement  of  their  civilizaton.  The  pur- 
chase from  Ephron  by  Abraham  of  the  cave  of  Mach- 
pelah  is  an  illustration.'^  They  had  undoubtedly  passed 
through  a  previous  experience  in  all  respects  similar  to 
that  of  the  Aryan  tribes ;  and  came  out  of  barbarism,  like 
them,  in  possession  of  the  domestic  animals  and  of  the 
cereals,  together  with  a  knowledge  of  iron  and  brass,  of 
gold  and  silver,  of  fictile  wares  and  of  textile  fabrics.  But 
their  knowledge  of  field  agriculture  was  limited  in  the 
time  of  Abraham.  The  reconstruction  of  Hebrew  society, 
after  the  Exodus,  on  the  basis  of  consanguine  tribes,  to 
which  on  reaching  Palestine  territorial  areas  were  as- 
signed, shows  that  civilization  found  them  under  gentile 

I  The  German  tribes  when  first  known  historically  were  in 
the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism.  They  used  iron,  but  in  limited 
quantities,  possessed  flocks  and  herds,  cultivated  the  cereals, 
and  manufactured  coarse  textile  fabrics  of  linen  and  woolen; 
but  they  had  not  then  attained  to  the  idea  of  individual  owner- 
ship in  lands.  According  to  the  account  of  Caesar,  elsewhere 
cited,  the  arable  lands  were  allotted  annually  by  the  chiefs, 
while  the  pasture  lands  were  held  in  common.  It  would  seem, 
therefore,  that  the  idea  of  individual  property  in  lands  was 
unknown  in  Asia  and  Europe  in  the  Middle  Period  of  barbarism, 
but  came   in   during  the  Later  Period. 

-t  "Genesis,"   .\xiii,   13. 


*rttE  THREE   RULES   OF   INHERITANCE  555 

institutions,  and  below  a  knowledge  of  political  society. 
With  respect  to  the  ownership  and  inheritance  of  prop- 
erty, their  experience  seems  to  have  been  coincident  with 
that  of  the  Roman  and  Grecian  tribes,  as  can  be  made 
out,  with  some  degree  of  clearness,  from  the  legislation 
of  Moses.  Inheritance  was  strictly  within  the  phratry, 
and  probably  within  the  gens,  namely  "the  house  of  the 
father."  The  archaic  rule  of  inheritance  among  the 
Hebrews  is  unknown,  except  as  it  is  indicated  by  the 
reversion,  which  was  substantially  the  same  as  in  the 
Roman  law  of  the  Twelve  Tables.  We  have  this  law  of 
reversion,  and  also  an  illustrative  case,  showing  that  after 
children  had  acquired  an  exclusive  inheritance,  daughters 
succeeded  in  default  of  sons.  Marriage  would  then 
transfer  their  property  from  their  own  gens  to  that  of 
their  husband's,  unless  some  restraint,  in  the  case  of 
heiresses,  was  put  on  the  right.  Presumptively  and 
naturally,  marriage  within  the  gens  was  prohibited.  This 
presented  the  last  great  question  which  arose  with  respect 
to  gentile  inheritance.  It  came  before  Moses  as  a  question 
of  Hebrew  inheritance,  and  before  Solon  as  a  question  of 
Athenian  inheritance,  the  gens  claiming  a  paramount 
right  to  its  retention  within  its  membership ;  and  it  was 
adjudicated  by  both,  in  the  same  manner.  It  may  be 
reasonably  supposed  that  the  same  question  had  arisen  in 
the  Roman  gentes,  and  was  in  part  met  by  the  rule  that 
the  marriage  of  a  female  worked  a  dcminntio  capitis,  and 
with  it  a  forfeiture  of  agnatic  rights.  Another  question 
was  involved  in  this  issue ;  namely,  whether  marriage 
should  be  restricted  by  the  rule  forbidding  it  within  the 
gens,  or  become  free ;  the  degree,  and  not  the  fact  of  kin, 
being  the  measure  of  the  limitation.  This  last  rule  was 
to  be  the  final  outcome  of  human  experience  with  respect 
to  marriage.  A\'ith  these  considerations  in  mind,  the  case 
to  be  cited  sheds  a  strong  light  upon  the  early  institutions 
of  the  Hebrews,  and  shows  their  essential  similarity  with 
those  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  under  gentilism. 

Zelophehad  died  leaving  daughters,  but  no  sons,  and 
the  inheritance  was  given  to  the  former.  Afterwards, 
these  daughters  being  about  to  marry  out  of  the  tribe  of 


556  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

Joseph,  to  which  they  belonged,  the  members  of  the  tribe 
objecting  to  such  a  transfer  of  the  property,  brought  the 
question  before  Moses,  saying :  "If  they  be  married  to 
any  of  the  sons  of  the  other  tribes  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  then  shall  the  inheritance  be  taken  from  the  in- 
heritance of  our  fathers,  and  shall  be  put  to  the  in- 
heritance of  the  tribe  whereunto  they  are  received :  so 
shall  it  be  taken  from  the  lot  of  our  inheritance."  ^  Al- 
though this  language  is  but  the  statement  of  the  results 
of  a  proposed  act,  it  implies  a  grievance;  and  that  griev- 
ance was  the  transfer  of  the  property  from  the  gens  and 
tribe  to  which  it  was  conceived  as  belonging  by  hereditary 
right.  The  Hebrew  lawgiver  admits  this  right  in  the 
language  of  his  decision.  "The  tribe  of  the  sons  of  Joseph 
hath  spoken  well.  This  is  the  thing  which  the  Lord  doth 
command,  concerning  the  daughters  of  Zelophehad 
saying,  Let  them  marry  to  whom  they  think  best :  only  to 
the  family  of  the  tribe  of  their  father  shall  they  marry. 
So  shall  not  the  inheritance  of  the  children  of  Israel  re- 
move from  tribe  to  tribe :  for  every  one  of  the  children 
of  Israel  shall  keep  himself  to  the  inheritance  of  the  tribe 
of  his  fathers.  And  every  daughter  that  possesseth  an 
inheritance  in  any  tribe  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall  be 
wife  unto  one  of  the  family  of  the  tribe  of  her  father,  that 
the  children  of  Israel  may  enjoy  every  man  the  inherit- 
ance of  his  fathers."  *  They  were  required  to  marry  into 
their  own  phratry  (supra,  p.  368),  but  not  necessarily 
into  their  own  gens.  The  daughters  of  Zelophehad  were 
accordingly  "married  to  their  father's  brother's  sons," 
who  were  not  only  members  of  their  own  phratry,  but 
also  of  their  own  gens.  They  were  also  their  nearest 
agnates. 

On  a  previous  occasion,  Moses  had  established  the  rule 
of  inheritance  and  of  reversion  in  the  following  explicit 
language.  "And  thou  shalt  speak  unto  the  children  of 
Israel,  saying,  If  a  man  die  and  have  no  son,  then  you 
shall  cause  his  inheritance  to  pass    unto   his    daughters. 

I  "Numbers."  xxxvl,  4. 
a  "Numbfrs,"  xxxvl,  5-9. 
3  lb.,  xxxvl,  11. 


THE   THREE   RULES   OF   INHERITANCE  657 

And  if  he  have  no  daughter,  then  you  shall  give  his  in- 
heritance unto  his  brothers.  And  if  he  have  no  brethren, 
then  ye  shall  give  his  inheritance  unto  his  father's  breth- 
ren. And  if  his  father  have  no  brethren,  then  ye  shall 
give  his  inheritance  unto  his  kinsman,  that  is  next  to  him 
of  his  family,  and  he  shall  possess  it."  ^ 

Three  classes  of  heirs  are  here  named ;  first,  the  chil- 
dren of  the  deceased  owner;  second,  the  agnates,  in  the 
order  of  their  nearness ;  and  third,  the  gentiles,  restricted 
to  the  members  of  the  phratry  of  the  decedent.  The  first 
class  of  the  heirs  were  the  children ;  but  the  inference 
would  be  that  the  sons  took  the  property,  subject  to  the 
obligation  of  maintaining  the  daughters.  We  find  else- 
where that  the  eldest  son  had  a  double  portion.  In  default 
of  sons,  the  daughters  received  the  inheritance.  The 
second  class  were  the  agnates,  divided  into  two  grades ; 
first,  the  brethren  of  the  decedent,  in. default  of  children, 
received  the  inheritance ;  and  second,  in  default  of  them, 
the  brethren  of  the  father  of  the  decedent.  The  third  were 
the  gentiles,  also  in  the  order  of  their  nearness,  namely, 
"his  kinsman  that  is  next  to  him  of  his  family."  As  the 
"family  of  the  tribe"  is  the  analogue  of  the  phratry 
(supra,  p.  369),  the  property,  in  default  of  children  and 
of  agnates,  went  to  the  nearest  phrator  of  the  deceased 
owner.  It  excluded  cognates  from  the  inheritance,  so  that 
a  phrator,  more  distant  than  a  father's  brother,  would 
inherit  in  preference  to  the  children  of  a  sister  of  the 
decedent.  Descent  is  shown  to  have  been  in  the  male  line, 
and  the  property  must  remain  hereditary  in  the  gens.  It 
will  be  noticed  that  the  father  did  not  inherit  from  his 
son,  nor  the  grandfather  from  his  grandson.  In  this 
respect  and  in  nearly  all  respects,  the  Mosaic  law  agrees 
with  the  law  of  the  Twelve  Tables.  It  afifords  a  striking 
illustration  of  the  uniformity  of  human  experience,  and 
of  the  growth  of  the  same  ideas  in  parallel  lines  in  dif- 
ferent races. 

At  a  later  day,  the  Levitical  law  established  marriage 
upon  a  new  basis  independent  of  gentile  law.  It  prohibited 

I  "Numbers"  xxvii,    8-11. 


558  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

its  occurrence  within  certain  prescribed  degrees  of  con- 
sanguinity and  affinity,  and  declared  it  free  beyond  those 
degrees.  This  uprooted  gentile  usages  in  respect  to  mar- 
riage among  the  Hebrews ;  and  it  has  now  become  the 
rule  of  Christian  nations. 

Turning  to  the  laws  of  Solon  concerning  inheritances, 
we  find  them  substantially  the  same  as  those  of  Moses. 
From  this  coincidence,  an  inference  arises  that  the  ante- 
cedent usages,  customs  and  institutions  of  the  Athenians 
and  Hebrews  were  much  the  same  in  relation  to  property. 
In  the  time  of  Solon,  the  third  great  rule  of  inheritance 
was  fully  established  among  the  Athenians,  The  sons  took 
the  estate  of  their  deceased  father  equally ;  but  charged 
with  the  obligation  of  maintaining  the  daughters,  and 
of  apportioning  them  suitably  on  their  marriage.  If  there 
were  no  sons,  the  davighters  inherited  equally.  This  cre- 
ated heiresses  by  investing  w^oman  with  estates,  who  like 
the  daughters  of  Zelophehad,  would  transfer  the  prop- 
erty, by  their  marriage,  from  their  own  gens  to  that  of 
their  husband.  The  same  question  came  before  Solon  that 
had  been  brought  before  Moses,  and  was  decided  in  tlie 
same  way.  To  prevent  the  transfer  of  property  from  gens 
to  gens  by  marriage,  Solon  enacted  that  the  lieircss  should 
marry  her  nearest  male  agnate,  although  they  belonged  to 
the  same  gens,  and  marriage  between  them  had  previously 
been  prohibited  by  usage.  This  became  such  a  fixed  rule 
of  Athenian  law,  that  M.  De  Coulanges,  in  his  original 
and  suggestive  work,  expresses  the  opinion  that  the  in- 
heritance passed  to  the  agnate,  subject  to  the  obligation 
of  marrying  the  heiress.^  Instances  occurred  where  the 
nearest  agnate,  already  married,  put  away  his  wife  in 
order  to  marry  the  heiress,  and  thus  gain  the  estate.  Pro- 
tomachus,  in  the  Eubulides  of  Demosthenes,  is  an 
example.''  lUit  it  is  hardly  supposalMe  that  the  law 
compelled  the  agnate  to  divorce  his  wife  and  marry  the 
heiress,  or  that  he  could  obtain  the  estate  without  be- 
coming her  husband.  If  there  were  no  children,  the  estate 

1  "The  Ancient  City,"  Lee  &  Shepard's  ed.,  SmaU's  trans.,  p.  99. 
»  "Demosthenes  against   Eubul.,"   41. 


THE  THREE  RULES   OF   INHERITANCE  55J 

passed  to  the  agnates,  and  in  default  of  agnates,  to  the 
gentiles  of  the  deceased  owner.  Property  was  retained 
within  the  gens  as  inflexibly  among  the  Athenians  as 
among  the  Hebrews  and  the  Romans.  Solon  turned  into 
a  law  what,  probably,  had  before  become  an  established 
usage. 

The  progressive  growth  of  the  idea  of  property  is  illus- 
trated by  the  appearance  of  testamentary  dispositions 
established  by  Solon.  This  right  was  certain  of  ultimate 
adoption;  but  it  required  time  and  experience  for  its 
development.  Plutarch  remarks  that  Solon  acquired 
celebrity  by  his  law  in  relation  to  testaments,  which  be- 
fore that  were  not  allowed ;  but  the  property  and  home- 
stead must  remain  in  the  gens  of  the  decedent.  When  he 
permitted  a  person  to  devise  his  own  property  to  any  one 
he  pleased,  in  case  he  had  no  children,  he  honored  friend- 
ship more  than  kinship,  and  made  property  the  rightful 
possession  of  the  owner. '  This  law  recognized  the  ab- 
solute individual  ownership  of  property  by  the  person 
while  living,  to  which  was  now  superadded  the  power  of 
disposing  of  it  by  will  to  whomsoever  he  pleased,  in  case 
he  had  no  children ;  but  the  gentile  right  to  the  property 
remained  paramount  so  long  as  children  existed  to  rep- 
resent him  in  the  gens.  Thus  at  every  point  we  meet  the 
evidence  that  the  great  principles,  which  now  govern 
society,  were  elaborated  step  by  step  proceeding  in 
sequences,  and  tending  invariably  in  the  same  upward 
direction.  Although  several  of  these  illustrations  are 
drawn  from  the  period  of  civilization,  there  is  no  reason 
for  supposing  that  the  laws  of  Solon  were  new  creations 
independent  of  antecedents.  They  rather  embodied  in 
positive  form  those  conceptions,  in  relation  to  property, 
which  had  gradually  developed  through  experience,  to 
the  full  measure  of  the  laws  themselves.  Positive  law  was 
now  substituted  for  customary  law. 

The  Roman  law  of  the  Twelve  Tables    (first  promul- 
gated 449  B.  C.)  ^  contain  the  rules  of  inheritance  as  then 


I  Plutarch,   "Vita   Solon,"   c.   21. 
s  Livy,  ill,  54.  57. 


560  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

established.  The  property  passed  first  to  the  children, 
equally  with  whom  the  wife  of  the  decedent  was  a  co- 
heiress ;  in  default  of  children  and  descendants  in  the  male 
line,  it  passed  to  the  agnates  in  the  order  of  their  near- 
ness ;  and  in  default  of  agnates  it  passed  to  the  gentiles. ' 
Here  we  find  again,  as  the  fundamental  basis  of  the  law, 
that  the  property  must  remain  in  the  gens.  Whether  the 
remote  ancestors  of  the  Latin,  Grecian  and  Hebrew  tribes 
possessed,  one  after  the  other,  the  three  great  rules  of 
inheritance  under  consideration,  we  have  no  means  of 
knowing,  excepting  through  the  reversion.  It  seems  a 
reasonable  inference  that  inheritance  was  acquired  in  the 
inverse  order  of  the  law  as  it  stands  in  the  Twelve  Tables ; 
that  inheritance  by  the  gentiles  preceded  inheritance  by 
the  agnates,  and  that  inheritance  by  the  agnates  preceded 
an  exclusive  inheritance  by  the  children. 

During  the  Later  Period  of  barbarism  a  new  element, 
that  of  aristocracy,  had  a  marked  development.  The 
individuality  of  persons,  and  the  increase  of  wealth  now 
possessed  by  individuals  in  masses,  were  laying  the  foun- 
dation of  personal  influence.  Slavery,  also,  by  perma- 
nently degrading  a  portion  of  the  people,  tended  to  estab- 
lish contrasts  of  condition  unknown  in  the  previous 
ethnical  periods.  This,  with  property  and  official  position, 
gradually  developed  the  sentiment  of  aristocracy,  which 
has  so  deeply  penetrated  modern  society,  and  antagonized 
the  democratical  principles  created  and  fostered  by  the 
gentes.  It  soon  disturbed  the  balance  of  society  by  intro- 
ducing unequal  privileges,  and  degrees  of  respect  for 
individuals  among  people  of  the  same  nationality,  and 
thus  became  the  source  of  discord  and  strife. 

In  the  Upper  Status  of  barbarism,  the  office  of  chief 
in  its  different  grades,  originally  hereditary  in  the  gens 
and  elective  among  its  members,  passed,  very  likeiy, 
among  the  Grecian  and  Latin  tribes,  from  father  to  son, 
as  a  rule.  That  it  passed  by  hereditary  right  cannot  be 
admitted  upon  existing  evidence ;  but  the  possession  of 
either  of  the  offices  of  archon,  phylo-basileus,  or  basileus 

I  Gaius,   "Inst.,"   ill,   1,   9,   17. 


THE  THREE   RULES   OF   INHERITANCE  561 

among  the  Greeks,  and  of  princeps  and  rex  among  the 
Romans,  tended  to  strengthen  in  their  families  the  senti- 
ment of  aristocracy.  It  did  not,  however,  become  strong 
enough  to  change  essentially  the  democratic  constitution 
of  the  early  governments  of  these  tribes,  although  it  at- 
tained a  permanent  existence.  Property  and  office  were 
the  foundations  upon  which  aristocracy  planted  itself. 

Whether  this  principle  shall  live  or  die  has  been  one  of 
the  great  problems  with  which  modern  society  has  been 
engaged  through  the  intervening  periods.  As  a  question 
between  equal  rights  and  unequal  rights,  between  equal 
laws  and  unequal  laws,  betw^een  the  rights  of  wealth,  of 
rank  and  of  official  position,  and  the  power  of  justice  and 
intelligence,  there  can  be  little  doubt  of  the  ultimate  re- 
sult. Although  several  thousand  years  have  passed  away 
without  the  overthrow  of  privileged  classes,  excepting  in 
the  United  States,  their  burdensome  character  upon  so- 
ciety has  been  demonstrated. 

Since  the  advent  of  civilization,  the  outgrowth  of  prop- 
erty has  been  so  immense,  its  forms  so  diversified,  its 
uses  so  expanding  and  its  management  so  intelligent  in 
the  interests  of  its  owners,  that  it  has  become,  on  the  part 
of  the  people,  an  unmanageable  power.  The  human  mind 
stands  bewildered  in  the  presence  of  its  own  creation. 
The  time  will  come,  nevertheless,  when  human  intelli-- 
gence  will  rise  to  the  mastery  over  property,  and  define 
the  relations  of  the  state  to  the  property  it  protects,  as 
well  as  the  obligations  and  the  limits  of  the  rights  of  its 
owners.  The  interests  of  society  are  paramount  to  indi- 
vidual interests,  and  the  two  must  be  brought  into  just 
and  harmonious  relations.  A  mere  property  career  is  not 
the  final  destiny  of  mankind,  if  progress  is  to  be  the  law 
of  the  future  as  it  has  been  of  the  past.  The  time  which 
has  passed  away  since  civilization  began  is  but  a  fragment 
of  the  past  duration  of  man's  existence ;  and  but  a  frag- 
ment of  the  ages  yet  to  come.  The  dissolution  of  society 
bids  fair  to  become  the  termination  of  a  career  of  which 
property  is  the  end  and  aim ;  because  such  a  career  con- 
tains the  elements  of  self-destruction.  Democracy  in 
jfovernment,  brotherhood  in  society,  equality    in  rights 


562  ANCIENT  SOCIETY 

and  privileges,  and  universal  education,  foreshadow  th* 
next  higher  plane  of  society  to  which  experience,  intelr 
ligence  and  knowledge  are  steadily  tending.  It  will  be  a 
revival,  in  a  higher  form,  of  the  liberty,  equality  and 
fraternity  of  the  ancient  gentes. 

Some  of  the  principles,  and  some  of  the  results  of  the 
growth  of  the  idea  of  property  in  the  human  mind  have 
now  been  presented.  Although  the  subject  has  been  inad- 
equately treated,  its  importance  at  least  has  been  shown. 

With  one  principle  of  intelligence  and  one  physical 
form,  in  virtue  of  a  common  origin,  the  results  of  human 
experience  have  been  substantially  the  same  in  all  times 
and  areas  in  the  same  ethnical  status. 

The  principle  of  intelligence,  although  conditioned  in 
its  powers  within  narrow  limits  of  variation,  seeks  ideal 
standards  invariably  the  same.  Its  operations,  conse- 
quently, have  been  uniform  through  all  the  stages  of 
human  progress.  No  argument  for  the  unity  of  origin  of 
mankind  can  be  made,  which,  in  its  nature,  is  more 
satisfactory.  A  common  principle  of  intelligence  meets 
us  in  the  savage,  in  the  barbarian,  and  in  civilized  man. 
It  was  in  virtue  of  this  that  mankind  were  able  to  produce 
in  similar  conditions  the  same  implements  and  utensils, 
the  same  inventions,  and  to  develop  similar  institutions 
from  the  same  original  germs  of  thought.  There  is  some- 
thing grandly  impressive  in  a  principle  which  has 
wrought  out  civilization  by  assiduous  application  from 
small  beginnnings ;  from  the  arrow  head,  which  expresses 
the  thought  in  the  brain  of  a  savage,  to  the  smelting  of 
iron  ore,  which  represents  the  higher  intelligence  of  the 
barbarian,  and,  finally,  to  the  railway  train  in  motion, 
which  may  be  called  the  triumph  of  civilization. 

It  must  be  regarded  as  a  marvelous  fact  that  a  portion 
of  mankind  five  thousand  years  ago,  less  or  more,  attained 
to  civilization.  In  strictness  but  two  families,  the  Semitic 
and  the  Aryan,  accomplished  the  work  through  unassisted 
self-development.  The  Aryan  family  represents  the  cen- 
tral stream  of  human  progress,  because  it  produced  the 
highest  type  of  mankind,  and  because  it  has  proved  its 
intrinsic  superiority  by  gradually  assuming  the  control 


THE    THREE    RULES   OF    INHERITANCE  563 

of  the  earth.  And  yet  civihzation  must  be  regarded  as  an 
accident  of  circumstances.  Its  attainment  at  some  time 
was  certain;  but  that  it  should  have  been  accompHshed 
when  it  was,  is  still  an  extraordinary  fact.  The  hindrances 
that  held  mankind  in  savagery  were  great,  and  surmount- 
ed with  difficulty.  After  reaching  the  Middle  Status  of 
barbarism,  civilization  hung  in  the  balance  while  barbar- 
ians were  feeling  their  way,  by  experiments  with  the 
native  metals,  toward  the  process  of  smelting  iron  ore. 
Until  iron  and  its  uses  were  known,  civilization  was  im- 
possible. If  mankind  had  failed  to  the  present  hour  to 
cross  this  barrier,  it  would  have  afforded  no  just  cause 
for  surprise.  When  we  recognize  the  duration  of  man's 
existence  upon  the  earth,  the  wide  vicissitudes  through 
which  he  has  passed  in  savagery  and  in  barbarism,  and 
the  progress  he  was  compelled  to  make,  civilization  might 
as  naturally  have  been  delayed  for  several  thousand  years 
in  the  future,  as  to  have  occurred  when  it  did  in  the  good 
providence  of  God.  We  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that 
it  was  the  result,  as  to  the  time  of  its  achievement,  of  a 
series  of  fortuitous  circumstances.  It  may  well  serve  to 
remind  us  that  we  owe  our  present  condition,  with  its 
multiplied  means  of  safety  and  of  happiness,  to  the 
struggles,  the  sufferings,  the  heroic  exertions  and  the 
patient  toil  of  our  barbarous,  and  more  remotely,  of  our 
savage  ancestors.  Their  labors,  their  trials  and  their  suc- 
cesses were  a  part  of  the  plan  of  the  Supreme  Intelligence 
to  develop  a  barbarian  out  of  a  savage,  and  a  civilized 
man  out  of  this  barbarian. 


INDEX 


Abipones.    188. 

Adair,  James,  15,  77,  note;  83, 
539. 

Adams,    Prof.    Henry,    280. 

Adoption,  ceremony  of,  amonfe- 
Iroquois,    81,   note; 

Age  of  Stone,  of  Bronze,  and 
of   Iron,    8. 

Algonkin  tribes,   169. 

Alphabet,  phonetic,  10.  Its 
invention,   31,   note. 

Animals,  their  domestication, 
11,    42. 

Archon,    office    of,    268. 

Arickarees,    169. 

Aristocracy.      Its    rise,    267. 

Army  organization  in  gentile 
society,  by  gentes,  by  phra- 
tries,  and  by  tribes,  244.  In 
Athenian  political  society  by 
property  classes,  272.  In 
Roman    by    same,    343. 

Arts  of  subsistence,  19.  1. 
Fruits  and  Roots,  20.  2.  Fish, 
21.  3.  Farinaceous  Food,  22. 
4.  Meat  and  Milk,  24.  Field 
Agriculture,    26. 

Arrawaks,    187. 

Aryan,  Family  of.  38.  System 
of  consanguinity  and  affin- 
ity, 491.  Table,  500. 
Assembly  of  the  people,  121. 
122.  Agora  of  Athenians, 
252.  Comitia  Curiata  of  the 
Romans,  324,  349.  Comitia 
Centuriata,  340,  342. 
Ashangos.     382. 

Athapasco-Apache  Tribes,  179. 
Australian  organization  on 
basis  of  sex,  47.  Classes. 
50.  Descents,  55,  note. 
Aztec  Confederacy,  191.  Of 
three  Nahuatlac  tribes,  194. 
When  established,   197.     E.x- 


tent  of  territorial  domina- 
tion, 198.  Population  of 
Valley  of  Mexico,  200.  Of 
Pueblo,  of  Mexico,  201.  Gen- 
tes and  phratries,  202.  Own- 
ership of  lands  In  common, 
206.  Council  of  Chiefs.  209. 
Office  of  Teuctli,  or  principal 
war-chief,  212.  Aztec  mon- 
archy  a   fiction,    219. 


Bachofen.  Das  Mutterrecht, 
369,    360,    464,    note. 

Bandelier,  Ad.  F.,  205,  206, 
note;    210,    note. 

Bancroft,  H.  H.,  181. 
Barbarism,  period  of,  41.  In- 
ventions and  discoveries  in 
Later  Period,  32.  In  Middle 
Period,  33.  In  Older  Period, 
34.  Great  achievements  in 
this    Period,    41. 

Basileus,  253.  Probably  elect- 
ive, 255.  Office  without  civil 
functions,  258.  Office  of 
Roman  Rex  elective,  259. 
Each  a  general,  with  the  ad- 
ditional functions  of  a  priest 
and  judge,  256.  Aristotle's 
definition,  258.  Early  Grec- 
ian governments  military 
democracies,  258,  282.  Ro- 
mans under  the  reges  the 
same,  259.  Office  of  basileus 
abolished  by  the  Athenians, 
267,  282.  Of  rex  by  the  Ro- 
mans,   328. 

Baslleia,    256. 

Becker,  Prof.  W.  A.  Family 
nf  ancient  Greeks,  483,  note. 
Of  Romans,   486,  note. 

Blackfeet   tribes,    175. 

Blood   revenge,    77.    245. 

Bow  and  arrow;   its  lQT*ntloa 


666 


INDEX 


created  an  epoch,  10.  Difficult 

to    invent,    21,    note. 
Burial   place   of   gens.    Usually 

common  among  Indian  tribes, 

83.      Of    Tuscaroras,    84. 
Byington,  Rev.  Dr.  Cyrus,  166. 


Cameron,    Mr.    A.    S.    P.,    386. 

Categories  of  relatives:  of 
Hawaiians,  414.  Of  Chinese, 
425.  In  Timaeus  of  Plato, 
426. 

Cayugas,  gentes,  69.  Phra- 
tries,    91. 

Chief,  office  of,  elective,  71, 
148.  Headchief  of  tribe,  120. 
Described  as  a  lord,  208.  No 
analogy,  ib.  Chief  of  Grec- 
ian gens,  269. 

Cherokees,    168. 

Chickasas,  gentes,  167.  Phra- 
tries,   ib. 

Choctas,  gentes,  166.  Phratries, 
100. 

Civilization,  Period  of.  Its 
contributions  to  knowledge, 
29,    30. 

Cleisthenes.  Founder  of  second 
great  plan  of  government, 
222.  261.  His  legislation,  277. 
Institution  of  Athenian  po- 
litical Society,  277.  The 
Deme,  or  Township,  ib.  Lo- 
cal tribe  or  county,  279. 
Commonwealth  or  State,  279. 
Inhabitants  of  each  an  or- 
ganized self-governing  body 
politic,   278,    279. 

Coalescence  of  tribes  in  a  na- 
tion,   127,    266. 

Confederacy  of  tribes,  124. 
Iroquois  Confederacy,  128. 
Its  organization  and  func- 
tions, 130.  Common  gentes, 
and  dialects  of  a  common 
language  its  basis,  125.  Az- 
tec  Confederacy,    191. 

Comanches,    182. 

Columbia  River,  Valley  of. 
Seed  land  of  GanowA,nian 
family,  110,  note.  Its  salmon 
fisheries,  bread  roots,  and 
game,    110.    note. 

Comitia  Curiata,  325,  349. 
Centuriata,  340,  342.  Tributa, 
345. 

Consanguine   Family,    393.   41(». 

Consanguinity,  Malayan  sys- 
tem of,  oldest,  395.  Turanian 
and  GnnowAnian,  the  second 
great  form,  396.  Aryan,  Se- 
mitic, .and  Ilralian,  third  great 
form.  398.  Systems  natural 
growths,    402.    Two    ultimate 


forms:  one  classificatory, 
the  other  descriptive,  403. 
Nature  of  a  system  of  con- 
sanguinity, 404.  Its  perm- 
anence, 411,  417.  Details  of 
Malayan  system,  412.  Rela- 
tives in  categories,  415.  Its 
origin,  418.  Details  of  Gano- 
wS,nian  and  Turanian,  444. 
Origin  of  system,  418.  Aryan 
system,    493.    Its    origin,    492. 

Communism  in  living,  454, 
462. 

Coulanges,  M.  De.  His  work, 
"The  Ancient  City,"  241,  247, 
558. 

Council  of  Chiefs,  121.  Iro- 
quois Council  invested  chiefs 
with  office,  138,  144.  Manner 
of  convening,  139,  note. 
Manner  of  transacting  bus- 
iness, 141.  Unanimity  re- 
quired, 142.  Aztec  Council, 
209.  Grecian  Council,  250.  Its 
universality,  251.  Roman 
Comitia,  325.  Senate,  316, 
324.   Comitia  Centuriata,    340. 

Cox,  Prof.  Edward  P.  Analyses 
of  pottery  of  Mound  Build- 
ers,   15. 

Creeks,    165. 

Crees,    172. 

Crows,    163. 

Curtius.    Prof..    358. 

Cushing,    Mr.    N.    A.,    539,   note. 


Dakota  tribes,   158. 

Dance.  A  form  of  worship 
among   Indian    tribes,    118. 

Delawares,   101,    176. 

Deme,  or  township  of  Athen- 
ians,   223. 

Democracy.  Universal  in  An- 
cient Society  and  inherited 
from  the  gentes,  72,  260. 
Liberty,  equality,  and  fra- 
ternity cardinal  principles 
of  the  gens,  85.  Athenian 
Democracy,    260,    277. 

Descent  in  female  line  when 
gens  is  in  archaic  form,  69. 
In  American  Indian  tribes, 
157-189.  In  male  line,  159- 
160,  170-173,  175-187.  How- 
changed  from  female  line  to 
male,  354.  Causes  which 
produced  the  change  In  Grec- 
ian gentes,  355.  In  female 
line      among      Lycians.      357. 

Ktruscans,  3ri8.  Views  of  Curt- 
ius, 358.  Of  Bachofen,  359. 
Among  Atlienlans  prior  to 
Cecrops,  300.  Required  to 
explain     certain     marriages. 


INDEX 


667 


361.  Legend  of  Danaidae, 
364.  In  female  line  among 
Ashiras,  Aponos,  and  Ashan- 
gos  of  Africa,  382.  Banyi, 
383.  Bangalas,  384. 
Du  Chaillu,   382. 


Ethnical  Periods,  8-13.  Ad- 
vantages of  these  subdivi- 
sions,     16.       Their       relative 

EpITol-iuy  '"of     the     Spartans. 

257 
Eries,    128,    note;    153-157. 
Etruscans,   287-358. 


Family,    the.    Five    successive 
forms,     393.       The    consan- 
guine, 393,  410.    The  punaluan, 
393     433       The    syndyasmian 
or  pairing,  394,  462.    The  pa- 
triarclial,    394,    474      The   mo- 
nogaraian,      394,      476.    .Con- 
sanguine    family,    origin     of 
relationship  in,  419.    Punalu- 
an    family,     origin    of    rela- 
tionship   in,     424.      Syndyas- 
mian,   462,    470.     Patriarchal, 
474.     Monogamian    family    of 
ancient      Germans,      479;      of 
Homeric     Greeks,      480,     483, 
note;  of  Romans,  485.  Origin 
of    relationship    in,    492,    497. 
Sequence  of  institutions    con- 
nected  with   the   family,    505. 
Freeman,  Dr.,  on  the  organiza- 
tion   of    German    tribes,    372, 
note.  .  H-      ,ft 

Flson,    Rev.    Lorimer,    14,    49, 
note;   52,   385.   386,   412. 


Ganov7§.nian  family,  its  name, 
156. 

Ganowanian  system  of  con- 
sanguinity and  affinity,  441, 
444.     Table,   456. 

Gentile  organization,  61,  190. 
Institutions  democratical, 
219. 

Gens  of  Australian  tribes,  48- 
54  of  Iroquois,  61.  Founded 
upon  kin,  62.  Definition  of  a 
gens,  66.  Descent  in  female 
line,  67.  Intermarriage  in 
the  gens  prohibited,  68. 
Rights,  privileges,  and  obli- 
gations of  its  members,  70- 
84.  Liberty,  equality,  and 
fraternity,  its  cardinal  prin- 
ciples,  85.  Grecian   gens,   221. 


Descent     in     male     line,    222. 
Rights,   privileges,   and   obli- 
gations  of   its   members,   2^8. 
Unit    of    the    social    system, 
233.    Roman   gens,   285.     Def- 
inition    of     a     gentilis,    291. 
Descent     in     male    line,     iyf. 
Rights,   privileges,    and    obli- 
gations  of   its   members,   292. 
Number      of     persons      in     a 
Roman   gens,   307.    Gentes   in  ^ 
other      tribes      of      mankina, 
368-390.     Probable    origin    or 
the    gens.   388. 
Gibbs,   George,   180. 
Government.     First   plan    gen- 
tile    and     social,    6.     Organic 
series,    gens,    phratry,    tribe, 
and    confederacy,  with  a  final 
coalescence     of    tribes     in    a 
nation,    47,    65.     First    stage, 
a  government  of  one  power, 
the  council  of  chiefs;  second, 
of     two     powers,    a     council 
and    a    military    commander; 
third,     of     three     powers,     a 
council,    a    general,    and    an 
assembly   of  the   people,   121, 
122     264.     Second    plan    terri- 
torial and  political,  6.    Prop- 
erty   classes    of    Solon,     271. 
Attic      Deme      or      township, 
277.     Registration    in    Deme, 
ib.     Local    tribe     or    county, 
279.     The    state,    279.     Athen- 
ian democracy.   281.  No  chief 
executive       magistrate,      283. 
Roman  political  society,   332. 
Property    classes    of    Servius 
Tullius,    340.     The   centuries, 
342.       "Comitia     Centuriata," 
342.     The    census,    346.     City 
wards,    346.     Registration    In 
ward   of  residence,   345.    Mu- 
nicipality      of       Rome,      349. 
Transition   from   gentile   into 
political  society,   350. 
Grote,       on       Grecian      gentes, 
phratries     and     tribes,      226- 
232,   236-238.  His  view  of  the 
early     Grecian     governments 
erroneous,  254.    His  illustra- 
tion   from    the    Iliad,    255. 

H 

Hale,  Horatio,  129,  note;  167, 
note;    180. 

Hart,  Robert.  On  the  hundred 
families   of  the   Chinese,   375. 

Hebrew  tribes,  377.  Marriages 
in  early  period  Indicate  gen- 
tes, with  descent  in  the  fe- 
male line,  378.  Gentes  and 
phratries  In  the  time  of  Mo- 
ses,   379. 


668 


INDEX 


Hodenosaunian    tribes,    157. 

House  life,  and  plan  of  living 
among  savage  and  barbar- 
ous tribes  deserve  special 
study,  409,   454. 


lowas,   160. 

Inventions  and  discoveries, 
29,   44. 

Iron,  13.  Process  of  smelt- 
ing, 43.  Ancient  side  hill 
furnaces  in  Switzerland,  42, 
note. 

Iroquois,  gentes,  61-69.  Phra- 
tries,  90-97.  Tribes,  103.  Con- 
federacy, 124.  Sachems  of 
th«    general    council,    151. 


'Jones,   C.   C,    14,   note. 

K 

Kaskaskias,    109. 
;Kaws,    107,    160. 
^Keepers    of    the    faith    in    the 

Iroquois,   81. 
Kennicott,    Robert,    179. 
Kikapoos,   175. 
Kolushes,   180. 


Lagunas,    185. 

Lands  owned  in  common  a- 
mong  Indian  tribes  in  Low- 
er Status  of  barbarism,  155- 
178,  With  a  possessory  right 
in  Individuals  to  occupied 
lands,  540.  In  common  by 
Aztec  gentes  probablv,  206. 
By  Roman  gentes,  298,  300, 
note;  551.  Some  by  phra- 
tries    and    tribes,    300. 

Latham.  R.  G.,  373,  374,   382. 

Language,  growth  of,  5.  Ques- 
tion  of  its  origin,   35,   note. 

Lockwood,    Charles  G.   N.,    386. 

Locrians,  hundred  families  of, 
361. 

Lycians,     descent      in      female 
i    line,   357,   358. 

iLubbock,  Sir  John,  14,  188, 
lote;   375. 


^^ip 


M 


Magars    of    Nepaul,    373. 

Maine.  Sir  Henry,  233.  On 
Celtic  groups  of  kinsmen  on 
French  estates.  369.  His 
original    researches,    514. 

Malayan     system     of     consan- 


guinity and  affinity,  Its 
origin,    418. 

McLennan,  Mr.  J.  F.,  373,  note; 
418.  Note  concerning  his 
work  on  "Primitive  Mar- 
riage,"  516-531. 

Mandans,    162. 

Marriage,  Australian  scheme, 
52,  55.  Hebrew,  378.  Con- 
sanguine, 410.  Punaluan,  433. 
Syndyasmian,  462.  Monogam- 
lan,   476. 

Menominees,   175. 

Matals,   native,   43. 

Mlnnltarees,    162. 

Miamis,    108,    172. 

Mississippi    tribes,    172. 

Missouri   tribes,    159. 

Mohegan  gentes,  178.  Phra- 
tries,   178. 

Mohawks,    127. 

Mommsen,  Theodor,  on  domes- 
tication of  animals,  23.  Fam- 
ily names,  77.  On  introduc- 
tion of  agriculture,  285,  note. 
Roman  gens,  289.  On  gen- 
tile   and   tribal   lands,    299. 

Montezuma,  principal  war- 
chief  of  Aztec  Confederacy, 
212,  213.  Tenure  and  func- 
tions of  the  office,  212.  His 
seizure  of  Cortes,  217,  note. 
His  deposition  by  the  Az- 
tecs,   217. 

Monogamian   Family,    394,    476. 

Monarchy  incompatible  with 
gentilism,    126,    259. 

Moqui  Village  Indians,  86,  183. 

Muller,   Max,   23. 

Munsees,    177. 

N 

Names  of  memiiers  of  a  gens, 
77.  How  bestowed,  78.  The 
name  conferred  gentile 
rights,    79. 

Nation  formed  by  coalescence 
of   tribes,   137,   249,   266. 

Neutral   nation,    153,    157. 

Naucraries    of    Atlienlans,    269. 

Niebuhr,  on  Roman  and  Grec- 
ian gentile  questions,  239, 
289.  295,  303,  306,  314,  322, 
324;    334. 


Ojibwas,  107,   170. 

Omahas,  107,  159. 

Oneidas,    69. 

Onondagas,   gentes,   69.     Phra- 

trles,    91. 
Osages,   107. 
Osborn,    Rev.    John,    Rotuman 

system  of  conaanguinlty,  412, 

note;    416. 


INDEX 


S6d 


Otawas.  172.    Otawa  Confeder- 
acy, 108. 
Otoes,   107,   160. 


Parkman.    Francis    157,   note. 
Patriarchal    Family,    394,    474, 

Patricians.  Roman,  335,  338. 

Pawnees,   169. 

Peorias,   109. 

Peschel,  Oscar.  14,  422. 

Phratry,  its  character,  SS.  Ut 
Iroquois,  90.  Its  functions. 
94-97.  Phratric  organization 
in  American  Indian  tribes, 
89  "et.  seq."  Of  Athenians, 
226.  Obes  of  Spartans,  225. 
Definition  of  Diltiearchus,  243. 
Objects  of  phratry,  242.  Uses 
In  armv  organization,  295. 
Phratriarch.  247.  Blood  re- 
venge, 245.  Roman  "curia 
a  phratry,  312.  Its  composi- 
tion   and   functions,    313,    314. 

Pianlceshaws,    109. 

Plebeians,  persons  unconnect- 
ed with  any  gens.  274.  Un- 
attached    class,     at     Athens, 

274.  Made  citizens  by  Solon. 

275.  Roman    plebeians,    333, 
334. 

Potawattamies,   171. 

Property,  growth  of.  5.  Its 
inheritance.  First  Rule:  In 
American  Indian  tribes.  74, 
157,  538,  540;  in  Status  of 
savagery.  535;  in  Lower  Stat- 
us of  barbarism,  538.  Second 
Rule,  541;  Property  in  Mid- 
dle Status.  542;  in  Upper 
Status,  549.  Third  Rule,  554; 
Hebrew  Inheritance,  553, 
556;  daughters  of  Zelophe- 
had,  555;  Athenian  inherit- 
ance. 558;  Roman,  559;  prop- 
erty career  of  civilized  na- 
tions,   561. 

Polyandry,   418. 

Polygyny,   418. 

Political  society,  224.  Institu- 
tion of  Athenian,  263.  Ex- 
periments of  Theseus,  265, 
266.  Draco,  270.  Legisla- 
tion of  Solon,  271.  Property 
classes,  ib.  Organization  of 
army.  272.  Legislation  of 
Clelsthenes,  277.  Attic  deme 
or  township,  ib.  Inhabit- 
ants of  each  a  body  politic, 
with  powers  of  local  self- 
government.  279.  Local  tribe 
or  county,  ib.  The  Athenian 
Commonwealth        or        State, 


279.  Government  founded 
upon  territory  and  upon 
property,  ib.  Powers  of  gen- 
tes,  phratrles,  and  tribes 
transferred  to  the  demes, 
counties,  or  state,  279,  282. 
No  chief  executive  magis- 
trate, 283.  Institution  of  Ro- 
man political  society,  332, 
352. 

Pottery,    13,    15,    16. 

Punaluan  Family.  393.  433. 
Of  Hawaiians,  436.  Of  Brit- 
ons, •^^439.     Other    tribes,    439. 

Punkas,    107,    159. 

Powell,    MaJ.   J.   W.,   546. 


Quappas.   1»7. 


R 


Ratio  of  human  progress,  29. 
Geometrical,    38. 

Rau,  Prof.  Charles,   14,  note. 

Religious  ideas,  growth  of,  5. 
Religious  rites,  81,  228,  297. 
Faith  and  worship  of  Amer- 
ican   Indian    tribes.    117. 

Roman  tribe,  323.  State,  329, 
340. 

Rome,  founding  of.  286.  318, 
319.    321. 

Sachem,  70.  Elective  tenure 
of  the  office,  71.  Iroquois 
mode  of  electing  and  invest- 
ing sachems.  144.  147.  Az- 
tec   sachems,    207. 

Salish.  Sahaptin,  and  Koote- 
nay    tribes,    181. 

Savagery,  its  contributions  to 
knowledge,  35.  Formative 
period  of  mankind.  40.  Ame- 
rican aborigines  commenced 
their  career  in  America  In 
savagery.    39. 

Sauks    and   Foxes,    174. 

.Schoolcraft,  Henry  R.,  on  the 
word    "totem,"    170. 

Scottish  Clan.   368. 

Semitic  family,   38. 

Senecas,  gentes,  69.  Phratrles, 
90.    Medicine    Lodges,    97. 

Sequence  of  institutions  con- 
nected  with   the   family,   505.       > 

Shawnees,   172. 

Shoshones,    182. 

Society,  gentile  and  political. 
See  "Government,"  and  "Po- 
litical   Society." 

South  American  Indian  tribes, 
187. 

Subsistence,  Arts  of.  19.  Fish 
and     game,    21.    Farinaceous 


570 


INDEX 


food,  22,   26.    Meat  and  milk, 
24.     Made   unlimited  by   field 
agriculture,    26. 
Syndyasmlan   family,   394,   462. 


Taplin,   Rev.   George,    385. 

Thlinkeets,  gentes,  101,  181. 
Phratrles,    101. 

Thums,  or  gentes  of  Magars 
of    Nepaul,    373. 

Totem.  The  symbol  of  a  gens; 
thus,  the  figure  of  a  Y'olf  Is 
the  totem  of  the  wolf  gens, 
170. 

Tribe,  Indian.  Definition  of, 
104.  Natural  growth  through 
segmentation,  105,  127.  At- 
tributes of  an  American  In- 
dian tribe,  113,  117.  Athen- 
ian tribe,  247.  Roman  tribe, 
310,    320. 

Turanian  system  of  consan- 
guinity and  affinity,  444.  Its 
origin,  431,  453.  Remains 
of  system  in  Grecian  and 
Roman    tribes,    489. 

Tuscaroras,  gentes,  69.  Plira- 
tries,    93.    Burial-place,    84. 

Tylor,  Mr.  Edward  B.,  13,  note: 
14,  187.  On  the  clans  of  tribes 
in   India,   374. 

U 
Upper   Missouri   tribes,    162. 


Valley  of  Columbia,  seed  land 
of  GanowJlnian  family,  110, 
and  note. 

Village    Indians,    155,    183. 


W 

Wampum,    belts   of,   their   use, 

142,  145. 
War-chief,  germ  of  the  oflice 
of  a  chief  executive  Magis- 
trate, King,  Emperor,  and 
President,  131,  149.  Princ- 
ipal war-chiefs  of  Iroquois, 
149.  Office  elective,  ib.  Of 
Aztecs,  213.  Ofi^ce  of  Teuctli 
elective,  217.  Basileus  of 
Grecian  tribes,  253.  Prob- 
ably elective,  ib.  Rex  of 
Roman  tribes,  314.  Nomi- 
nated by  the  Senate,  and 
elected  by  the  "Comitia  Cu- 
riata,"    315. 

Weaws,    109. 

Winnebagoes,   161. 

Wright.    Rev.    Ashur,    83,    464, 
note. 

Wyandotes,   157. 


Zuni  Village   Indians.   183„ 


University  of  California  Library 
Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  553  322    9 


